Talk:House of Hanover
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page. |
Contents |
[edit] Duke of Cumberland, son of George III
This template needs a little modification, in particular the words "Duke of Cumberland" need to be put next to the name of George III's son, Ernest Augustus I of Hanover who was by far the most notorious Cumberland of them all.
[edit] House of Hanover sidebar
This sidebar should be amended to add George III's other two children, Ernest Augustus I of Hanover and HRH The Prince Octavius of Great Britain. The list is correct as given on Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz's page.
[edit] d'Este?
Victoria of the United Kingdom has the surname "d'Este" linking to this page (and a note on the talk page sort-of explains why), but this page doesn't mention that name. Perhaps someone who knows the connection could add something somewhere? - IMSoP 19:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] House of Stuart?
The Kings of the House of Hanover did not succeed the Kings of the House of Stuart. They succeeded William III and Anne of the House of Orange. (unsigned)
- William III is almost always considered part of the House of Stuart (because of his marriage to Mary II, I think) and Anne wasn't part of the House of Orange, she was James II's daughter and thus one of the Stuarts. Craigy
(talk) 20:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Split with Britain
Why was the union between Hannover and Britain never completed? As I understand the article on the 1707 union between England and Scotland, one of the motivations for the English parliament to pursue the union was that without it Scotland and England could have split when Anne died. So since the split between Hannover and Britain was inevitable as the inheritance laws in Hannover stood, and since there was the precedent of the union between England and Scotland, why was there never any Act of Union between Britain and Hannover to prevent that split?
And what would the forseeable consequences have been if the union had been completed?
- I would assume it had something to do with the fact that Hanover was not an independent country, but a part of the Holy Roman Empire. --Chl 02:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Hanover was not a part of the Holy Roman Empire in 1837. It was a part of the Germanic Confederation. I believe that the succession laws of Hanover could not be changed, because the Duke of Brunswick (representative of the senior line of the Guelph house) had a reversionary right to Hanover, so there was no way to make Victoria inherit it. And changing the British succession law to give the crown to the Duke of Cumberland would have been out of the question. But the bigger issue is that nobody wanted anything more than a personal union, except maybe the kings themselves. The English always saw Hanover as a burden - an unwanted responsibility that was the price of the Protestant succession. And the Hanoverians weren't too big on it, either. The two states always maintained separate governments, and were never united in more than the person of the king. Sometimes one was at war while the other was at peace, which never happened with England and Scotland that I'm aware of (was Scotland neutral in the Anglo-Dutch Wars, for instance?). The basic issue is that the union between England and Scotland was a result of more than mere dynastic chance - there were genuine reasons that made it make sense for them to eventually become one state. Those factors simply were not present between Britain and Hanover, and there was no real interest on either side of the North Sea for a closer union. john k 03:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, lack of interest is a valid reason. Now, just for laughs, what would the consequences have been of such a union? The unification of Germany would definitely have been made more difficult for starters. Linguofreak 04:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I think such a union was so utterly impossible that it's not really worthwhile to speculate. On the other hand, if Victoria had died in infancy (or been a boy), the thrones would have remained personally united, even if not in an actual union. This, too, would have made German unification (in the Kleindeutsch form it eventually took, at least) a lot more difficult. john k 22:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Probable war with Germany over the territory? Linguofreak 02:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Highly doubtful. But this is getting far off topic. john k 04:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Descendents of Edward IV and Henry VII
What sort of social rank would one have to bear in their family, in order to be a descendent of either?
How far up the totem pole, would you say?
This is intended to have broad answers and based on gradients of time and population, not going into specifics about exact descendents. About how common is their descent in the English or British genepool today?
I've noticed that American Presidents don't descend from either king, but the most common recent royal ancestor shared by many of us is Edward III. How common is it for anybody in the English or British genepool, to have a Protestant royal ancestor?
There is a general cutoff, isn't there?
Is it because of fratricide in the Wars of the Roses, the Tudors' "new men", or the Union of the Crowns, or the parliamentary union under Queen Anne (I can't think of any non-royal family descent from the Hanoverians within the UK)?
I'm thinking that there is a big difference between Plantagenet and Tudor descents, that the commons in all likelihood have the former and the latter is held by the lords. (just generally speaking) Then again, Tudor descent in the Welsh must be higher in general. I am further curious about pre-Royal Tudor blood in Anglo-British people today, since the status and/or concept of Welsh royalty/nobility is rather hazy in my mind. I found the Blevins aka Ap Bleddyn family of Powys in my ancestry, but have no real idea on what to make of it--or any other Welsh "native aristocracy". I might be able to find Stewart descent somewhere, from way back when. What percentage of Hanoverian background do you think that German colonists had in America?
On the British side, I have to go as far back as Welf himself...but any recent genetic relationship with the Hanoverians or the counts of Nassau are completely obscure. How does one research those other colonial people, such as the Hessians?
UK genealogy is relatively easy when focusing on English (and French) ancestries. What would a "national person" of Jerusalem (or Antioch, for example) in Crusader times be known as?
We say "American" for those Founders, but was there such a nationality-term for the Crusaders in their own domains?
I guess the term is supposed to be Levantine/Outremer, or "Crusader" as our national heritage says "Colonist"...
IP Address 12:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
First off, the Hanovers were German, except for their British ancestor James I. Most American colonist were not descended from the Hanovers. They typically were children from noble houses who were younger and could not inherit. Therefore, many Americans are descended from the ancient middle class British families. That does not mean they are all descended from Edward III or the ancient British royalty. Any information stating that millions of people are directly descended from Edward III is incorrect. Edward III lived only seven hundred years ago. There are only twenty years in each generation. Do the math. There would not be a lot of direct descendents from Edward IV nor Henry VII either as they lived only six hundred years ago. It is wishful thinking on the part of the person who stated that false information. There is a difference between being related and being directly descended. As much as people would like to pretend they are descended from the royalty of Europe, only about 700,000 people are that is 1% of the entire world population. RosePlantagenet 14:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] template troubles
the templates on this page are badly broken! can anyone fix this? --168.122.219.132 01:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- all set--Alhutch 01:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
WTF: "Template:House of monkey butts The House of monkey butts (the butts) " although it got a chuckle out of me, how the heck did that get in there?
