asked if i was irish

[JockInSkye]

Jock from Skye, while the British royals have a fair dollop of Danish blood (not Greek – remember the Greek royal family is actually Danish) and a good deal of German, they have no Dutch ancestry.
You may be thinking of William III, but remember that he left no legitimate descendants.
The German predominated after the accession of the Hanovers, and even more so since Victoria’s day, but Diana had more Stewart ancestry than Charles, and the Queen Mum was very much a Scot.
King George V was half Danish.
But you are right about the English culture. Philip, as a boy and a young man, felt himself to be English, not Greek or Danish. His maternal grandfather might have been German, but his maternal grandmother belonged to Victoria’s brood.
Regards,
Mike

Thanks for that Mike, you've encouraged me to do a bit of reading on that topic.

Not forgetting a good dollop of Scots blood too, of course.

Oh Aye, how could I forget .

[McClef]

For the British Royal Family, marrying within the country, has been a relatively rare phenomenon until modern times.

The expectation was that members would marry other royals, of which there would be a limited supply outside of the limitations of consanguinity.

So, especially for royal males, it was necessary to look abroad for royal brides.

In time that choice became limited to countries that were Protestant, especially after 1688 and that meant Germany, with its many states and princedoms became the prime supplier. In that respect, Queen Alexandra (a Dane) was an exception.

Those who were down the Line of Succession often could marry within the country but even then it had to be to aristocrats.

Many, though technically German with German names titles and ancestry were born and raised in the UK.

When he married a member of the Scottish nobility (though she was actually born in England), the Queen's father did not expect to become King.

Yes a fascinating subject to read up on JockInSkye!

[O'Callaghan]

I have had debates about Irish historical kilt wear, I have to say though that the Royal family whom are English have been wearing kilts and other Scottish attire in Scotland (more notably balmoral) since the early 19th century, yet you could not say that this constitutes England having a history of kilt wearing. The same goes for English officers in the Scottish regiment.

A handful of Irish naitonalists wearing kilts is just that, a small handful of people and does not constitute (in my opinion) a historical legacy of kilt wearing.

So, how many people have to do something before you think it's part of history? Many of the most important historical events revolved around the actions of just one person. It's hard to take your argument seriously.

Besides, the pipers in the Irish regiments of the British Army also wore kilts dating back to the 19th century.

[BoldHighlander]

I think the answer here is simple - most people are only exposed to kilts when they're worn by pipe bands, many of which in the USA are of Irish extraction.

I think this hits the nail squarely on its head!...however my experience in my immediate corner of the country is that no matter what I wear (rather it be kilt, or balmoral by itself) I'm asked if I'm "Scottish" or "what is your clan?". This might have something to do with the close proximity to Canada, as well as our local games being such a huge & well publicized local event, and the lack of local "Irish" pipe bands (you have to travel south to Seattle for those).

[OC Richard]

I think the answer here is simple - most people are only exposed to kilts when they're worn by pipe bands, many of which in the USA are of Irish extraction.

Yes it was astounding a couple years ago when I could get on my local television here the entire NY City St Patrick's Day Parade shown live: pipe band after pipe band, nearly all with an Irish theme:

Bands wearing saffron:






Here's the County Cork Pipe Band:





(Oops they let a Scot in their ranks!)

Seemed like there was a pipe band dedicated to just about every Irish county!

And I've seen lists of competing pipe bands at competitions back in the Northeast where nearly all the bands have an Irish name.

Here (in Southern California) the situation is very different. We didn't have a single Irish themed pipe band here until a couple years ago when the LAPD Hibernian Society pipe band was formed. The exception was James Coyne Memorial Pipe Band which wears an Irish county tartan but the uniform is Scottish in every other way: nothing green or saffron, no Irish motifs, etc.

We have the LA Scots, the Pasadena Scots, Nicholson, The Cameron Highlanders of San Diego, the House Of Scotland, and casting further afield in the US Southwest we have Prince Charles, Mesa Caledonian, Silver Thistle, MacIntosh, the names of which leave little doubt as to their country of origin.

However the oldest pipe band in the Western US is The Irish Pipers Of San Francisco.

[macwilkin]

Besides, the pipers in the Irish regiments of the British Army also wore kilts dating back to the 19th century.

The early 20th century...I still haven't found any reliable sources for the late 19th century...

T.

[JockInSkye]

So, how many people have to do something before you think it's part of history? Many of the most important historical events revolved around the actions of just one person. It's hard to take your argument seriously.

Besides, the pipers in the Irish regiments of the British Army also wore kilts dating back to the 19th century.

The vast majority of those in the Irish regiments are ulster Scots (albiet a minority of Irish from the republic).

I have an Irish father and have lived in Ireland for several extended periods of time, the fact is that the kilt is not viewed as an Irish form of dress by any stretch, let alone accepted as a historical sense of dress. Respectfully I dont think your argument holds water.
The kilt is seen as Scottish in Ireland, and if you wore the Kilt in Ireland you would be assumed to be Scottish not Irish.
As I stated before the English Royal family have worn the kilt since the early 19th century, that does not constitute the English have a history of Kilt wearing.
And I would not regard Irish nationalists adopting the kilt (which never actually took off) as an important historical event.

I think your personal sentiments want the kilt to be historically Irish more than it is.

[starbkjrus]

Weirdly duplicated post.

[starbkjrus]

For the British Royal Family, marrying within the country, has been a relatively rare phenomenon until modern times.

The expectation was that members would marry other royals, of which there would be a limited supply outside of the limitations of consanguinity.

So, especially for royal males, it was necessary to look abroad for royal brides.

In time that choice became limited to countries that were Protestant, especially after 1688 and that meant Germany, with its many states and princedoms became the prime supplier. In that respect, Queen Alexandra (a Dane) was an exception.

Those who were down the Line of Succession often could marry within the country but even then it had to be to aristocrats.

Many, though technically German with German names titles and ancestry were born and raised in the UK.

When he married a member of the Scottish nobility (though she was actually born in England), the Queen's father did not expect to become King.

Yes a fascinating subject to read up on JockInSkye!

I agree with Trefor here - it's a facinating subject. I'm re-reading Crowns in a Changing World: The British and European Monarchies 1901-1936 by John van der Kiste. It's primarily about the changing and / or colapsing of monarchies during that period but its heavy on the geneology as well. It seems that after Queen Victoria EVERYBODY was one big Royal Family with lots of dysfunction and ego thrown in for good measure. (Disclaimer: Yes, I AM a royalist but I don't wear rose colored glasses.)

[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