-
3rd November 10, 02:49 PM
#9
![Quote](http://www.xmarksthescot.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png) Originally Posted by Mike_Oettle
Jock in Skye, your constant references to the “English” royal family are patronising and offensive.
While the kings and queens of England, Scotland and the United Kingdom have generally lived in England since the time of James VI of Scotland, their line of succession is Scottish. The Hanovers came to the throne thanks to their descent from Charles I.
George IV might have been the first sovereign in centuries to visit Scotland, but the royals have been personally and intensively involved in Scotland since that time.
Trefor, while the English and Scottish royals have frequently married foreign royalty, there are many instances where kings of both nations have married the daughters of earls and dukes.
William I, the founder of the dynasty, married the daughter of a Count of Flanders, and was himself a bastard, offspring of a Norse duke and a publican’s daughter. (He denied being a conqueror, but acknowledged his bastardy.)
The Tudors were of royal blood because Owen Tudor, a Welsh knight, had married Queen Catherine, widow of Henry V and daughter of Charles VI of France. Owen’s sons, Edmund and Jasper, had not a drop of English royal blood. Edmund’s marriage into the house of Beaufort and his son Henry’s marriage into the house of York were what established the family on the throne.
And while Mary Queen of Scots was first married to the Dauphin, her subsequent marriages were to Scottish noblemen. James VI was the son of her cousin Lord Darnley, heir to the earldom of Lennox.
It was only during the Hanoverian and Victorian eras that such a severe emphasis was laid on marrying royalty. This was a German attitude arising from the stratification of the German nobility.
Sovereign rulers in the Holy Roman Empire could only marry into the families of other sovereigns. Under Napoleon, many of those sovereign families were mediatised – they lost their sovereign territories, but their nobiliary rank was maintained, and they continued to marry people of sovereign rank.
Marriages between royals and the lower nobility (even counts and countesses) were frowned on. It was from the Holy Roman Empire that the notion of morganatic marriages emerged: a sovereign could marry someone of lower rank, but that spouse nonetheless had to be noble, and the offspring could not inherit the throne.
However morganatic marriages are foreign to British tradition. It was because Edward VIII insisted on marrying an unsuitable partner that he was obliged to abdicate. (Wallis Simpson was unsuitable chiefly because she was a divorcee.)
In closing, Jock in Skye, the Irish regiments of the British Army only became largely Orangist after the First World War. The Inniskilling Fusiliers mutinied in India because they regarded themselves as citizens of an Irish republic.
The usage of kilts in the Irish regiments has been discussed at length elsewhere.
Regards,
Mike
I regard the royal family as English (as I am sure they would regard themselves as English), I cannot possibly fathom why you would take offense at that. And regardless of politics or religion, the vast majority of the Royal Irish Regiment in the late 19th to early 20th century were indeed made up of Ulster Scots.
-
Similar Threads
-
By Jimmy in forum General Kilt Talk
Replies: 55
Last Post: 2nd December 09, 12:10 AM
-
By GMan in forum General Kilt Talk
Replies: 18
Last Post: 26th February 08, 07:50 AM
-
By Tahshar in forum DIY Showroom
Replies: 5
Last Post: 4th February 08, 12:39 PM
-
By SnakeEyes in forum The Tartan Place
Replies: 16
Last Post: 28th January 07, 05:43 PM
-
By awoodfellow in forum General Kilt Talk
Replies: 8
Last Post: 23rd September 04, 07:00 PM
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks