I’ve always been crap with history but!

[Snap8TheCat]

How could I not have realised we had another king between Edward VII and Edward VIII?

So it goes Edward, George, Edward, George?

I blame the fact that none of them use their bloody real names! How confusing.

Genuinely thought Edward VII was Edward VIII and George VI father. I know nothing!

Here's the Harper's Bazaar article.

www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a13988049/meghan-markle-royal-ancestors-royal-blood/

William of Orange landed at Brixham, in Torbay on November 5th 1688 - not sure whether that was by design or just a happy coincidence for him, being the anniversary of the foiling of the Gunpowder Plot, so it was sen as a good omen by the anti-Catholics.

The Dutch attacking England via the Medway happened nearly twenty years earlier, in Charles II’s reign, during the second Anglo-Dutch War. Charles was so short of money he couldn’t afford to maintain the whole Navy, so many of the ships were laid up at Chatham. The Dutch sailed up the Medway, broke the chain that was supposed to protect the ships, burnt a lot of them and towed the flagship, the Royal Charles back to the Netherlands.

Did anyone see the Tony "Time Challenge' programme about the real Royal Family? Apparently there was an accusation of illegitimacy in the 14thc (I think) which has now been proved to be false. The Royal Family are a result of the second brother's coronation. The real King - or should have been King has direct descendants and these have been traced to a sheep farmer in Australia who is a Lord.

It was Edward IV (1461-1470 & 1471-1483) who was accused of being illegitimate, his mother having allegedly slept with an archer while her husband, the Duke of York, was on campaign in France. It was claimed that, although the Duchess of York was also in France, the Duke could not have got back to where she was in time for Edward to be conceived.

Even if it had been true, the Australian sheep farmer still wouldn’t have had a claim to the throne, because the crown was specifically settled by Parliament on the the Hanoverian line in the Act of Settlement in 1701, so unless or until that line fails, or Parliament votes otherwise, no-one else can claim the throne.

Thanks Seneca - I thought that MM was bound to have some connection with the Royal family

It seems as if an earlier Edward, Edward III, was not in fact the son of Braveheart, hard to believe.

The Battenbergs are really interesting. The father Batternberg was top drawer posh - brother in law to the Tsar and a German royal, but he married a woman who, whilst being lovely no doubt, was considered common. She was 'just' a countess. So huge scandal and the children were considered of lowish rank. The oldest son married Queen Victoria's granddaughter, Victoria, through Princess Alice. Queen Victoria didn't mind about the Countess mil and was a sucker for a good looking bloke with some fresh blood for the family. They were the parents of Prince Philip's mother and also Lord Louis Mountbatten, murdered by the IRA in the 70s.
One of the younger brothers was a candidate for King of Bulgaria (in the nineteenth century countries that wanted kings went looking in the royal houses of Europe for appropriate politically acceptable candidates - Greece, Romania, Bulgaria etc. It often ended badly). Queen Victoria's granddaughter Victoria, through Princess Victoria the Princess Royal, fell in love with him and was desperate to marry him. The two senior Victorias thought this was ok though the political instability was a worry but Princess Royal Victoria was also Crown Princess of Prussia and the Prussian royal family took snobbery to an extra level and were horrified. After years of wrangling and upset it never came to anything and poor Prince Batternberg had to fall back on the default option for European Royalty and marry a opera singer. The abandoned princess made an terrible choice of Prince too.
There was a further brother who managed to catch the eye of Queen Victoria's daughter Beatrice and this Victoria did mind about. She opposed the marriage, not be she didn't like the groom but because she didn't like her daughters getting married. However the wedding went ahead and their daughter became Queen of Spain. So the Batternberg have their influence in the royal families of Spain, Greece and the UK. Not bad for a family who was considered to be not quite the thing.

She was 'just' a countess. So huge scandal and the children were considered of lowish rank. The oldest son married Queen Victoria's granddaughter, Victoria, through Princess Alice. Queen Victoria didn't mind about the Countess mil and was a sucker for a good looking bloke with some fresh blood for the family.

The British RF is rather unique in European royal families in historically not being as concerned about the concept of equal marriage and royalty marrying royalty. There are many examples of British royalty, including monarchs, not marrying royalty. But as recently as the 1970s, the present king of Sweden had to wait until his grandfather died so that he could marry his non-royal bride.

The last British prince to marry a princess was the Duke of Kent who married Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark. Of course, the present Queen did marry royalty, but it is well known that her parents, especially her mother, would have preferred her to marry a British nobleman.

Is that Princess Michael of Kent, Seneca?

No it was the father of Prince Michael of Kent, who died in WW II. He married Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark, a first cousin of Prince Philip. She was the mother of the present Duke of Kent, Princess Alexandra, and Prince Michael.

Prince Michael, the Queen's cousin, who was killed in an aircraft? Rather charismatic?

The prince killed in World War II was George, Duke of Kent. He died in a military air crash. He was the Queen's uncle. He was the father of the present Duke of Kent, Princess Alexandra and Prince Michael.

Prince William of Gloucester, the Queen's first cousin and brother of the present Duke of Gloucester, was killed in a private plane air crash in 1972.

How come William and Mary ruled jointly, but Philip and Liz2 don't?

Because they both had a good claim to be ruler, Philip has no claim to the English throne and I think he gave up being 'prince of Greece'.

One not too widely known snippet.

Nicholas II and Alexandria, when they first met, conversed and wrote to each other in English as he didn't speak much German and she didn't speak Russian. They continues to write in English to each other until he abdicated.

In William and Mary's case, I think it was more of a political necessity that resulted in them both being monarchs. Mary's claim was superior to William's as was the claim of her sister Anne. But they needed William to help establish a Protestant monarchy after James II and he wasn't going to participate unless he could be a co-equal monarch.

As a direct descendant of Queen Victoria, Prince Philip is in the line of succession to the throne but very far down.

Princess Michael of Kent was previously: Baroness Marie Christine von Reibnitz

Also, if you marry the king, you get to be queen. If you marry the queen you don't get to be king.

Watched loads of historical documentaries yesterday. One was about Queen Victoria. Despite Albert dying young, he achieved loads in his own right, and whilst alive seemed to be far more proactive and engaged in stuff than Victoria herself (tbf she must've been upduffed most of the time).

He was "only" the Consort.

Apparently DoE didn't want to give up his successful Naval career in marrying HM but doesn't seem to have achieved much in his own right despite allegedly being highly intelligent and motivated.

Also, if you marry the king, you get to be queen. If you marry the queen you don't get to be king.

Because a king is automatically superior to a queen

I was trying to explain this to DD the other day, and she felt sorry for the poor princes who didn't get to be kings... Think I need to sharpen up her understanding of patriarchy...

Prince Philip has done quite a bit to be fair @buggerthebotox, he set up the DoE Awards as well as (from Wikipedia):

“Philip is patron of some 800 organisations, particularly focused on the environment, industry, sport, and education. He was President of the National Playing Fields Association (now known as Fields in Trust) for 64 years, from 1947 until his grandson Prince William took over the role in 2013.[60] He served as UK President of the World Wildlife Fund from 1961 to 1982, International President from 1981, and President Emeritus from 1996. He is patron of The Work Foundation, was President of the International Equestrian Federation from 1964 to 1986, and has served as Chancellor of the Universities of Cambridge, Edinburgh, Salford, and Wales.[61]”

He’s also Ranger of Windsor Great Park and personally oversaw the establishment of farm shops and opening the park to the public.

He’s been quite a reformer inside the Household and certainly rubbed more than a few of the “Old Guard” up the wrong way.

Queen basically only means woman or wife. I think one of the reasons Matilda was called Lady of the English was because no-one knew what the title of a female ruler could be. (As well as not being crowned). Hence the distinction between Queen regnant and Queen consort.

The Queen can move in any direction, though (occasionally I despair of Twitter, then something like this comes long and makes me )

Maybe instead of worrying about men only being prince we should worry about women only being queen. Could they be king?

Isabella of Castile and Ferdinand of Aragon were often known as "the Catholic Kings" when they drove the Moors and Jews out of Spain.