Well, crap. So much for being able to watch a costume drama without being related to any of the characters (as I just did—or thought I did—with "Anne of the Thousand Days" off TCM). Malcolm, Duncan, and Kenneth MacAlpin? Directs, via a Spence colonial ancestor. Alfred the Great? Ditto. Mathilda of Flanders and William the Conqueror? Yep, via the first two Henrys and John on the wrong side of the blanket. And, actually, six of Henry I's two dozen mistresses.
Granted, with those exceptions, the relationships are pretty darned remote, so I reckon I can continue to ignore them and concentrate on the direct ancestors. With a few exceptions, like Great Aunt Aethelflaed, Lady of the Mercians, who kicked Danish behind. And Cousin Elizabeth II, because I know the two places where we share directs and I'm kind of a fan of hers.
Great job, Mr. G. ... I just didn't need to know that the whole lot of them are cousins of some sort.
Mary and Anne were actually older than their brother James as they were born to James II and his first wife, Ann Hyde. Their brother was born to James II And his second wife, a Catholic. Because males took precedence, James should have been James III, but as already mentioned, William of Orange, aided by John Churchill and others, made sure he and his father never got back on the throne.
Thinking again. I believe that I placed James to the left of Mary and Anne to make clear that he came before them in the line of succession. Similarly, placed the present-day Anne to the right of Andrew and Edward to show that she is the last of Elizabeth’s children. In contrast, I have Charlotte to the left of Louis because the rules of succession have changed for their generation.
Thank you so much! I can certainly move them around to reflect that. I should do the same with Henry VIII’s children, moving Edward to the right of his half-sisters. I believe I structured it that way prior to adding in the numbers—to show their sequence on the throne. With the numbers, there’s no need for that compromise. I’ll eventually replace the chart with a new one. Thanks again.
Fascinating, quite a work to produces those charts. I tried something simpler, a run down of the kings and queens of England from Alfred the Great. from my WordPress site.
Thanks for catching that the Dowager Electress Sophia, a Tough Old Girl, ALMOST became Queen, missing her chance by six weeks. She was 84 at time of sudden death and would have been Britain's oldest new sovereign. But Edward IV of England may have been illegitimate and NOT his father's son---yes, there has been a serious TV show on this--so an Australian should be--IS!!!--The Rightful King--except that on being interviewed/confronted HM stated he felt the Monarchy should be abolished.
And yes, I have an amateur historian's soft spot for Sophia. From what I know of her, she stands out among royals as being relatively stable and unaffected.
Norway and Denmark would be a good project. Spain with its extensions to and into Austria and France would likely be a much more involved project. Even get some Greek and therefore Danish bits too. Sweden would be short if you only bothered with the last group: Bernadotte from 1812(?).
Nice ideas. Unlikely unless, as you suggested, someone pays me. :) I did these five because my wife and I were planning a trip to Great Britain, and we watched a load of movies and TV shows on English/Scottish/British history. She would ask whether this Edward or Henry was the same as that Edward or Henry, and I started scribbling out little charts to indicate the relationships between all the characters we were seeing. The charts got more elaborate. My handwriting is pretty bad, so I shifted to doing them in Excel. It just kept going till I had finished all five. They did come in REALLY handy as we traveled about Britain. ... ... ... We have no trips planned, and the movies and TV series on these other thrones are few and far between. So the motives that led to these charts are unlikely to exist for any other country.
Bravo BTW. This is so excellent. Maybe the Danish, Swedish and Spanish monarchies should hire you to do the same for them! The interlocking relationships are impossible to keep track of. (The ouiji board also says 'stay away from Germany. There madness lies'.
Thanks much! For the right price, I'll do their charts, as well. :) Someone asked me about Ireland. But Ireland always had regional kings, and to my knowledge, they had no interaction with the British or Continental royals. The most interesting are the Ptolemys of Egypt--with their icky habit of sibling-marriage. http://www.strangehistory.net/2013/12/25/14742/
A slight error in chart 2, numbers 14 through 16. Mary of Orange, sister of James VII & II (#13) married William II of Orange. (They sheltered Charles II during the inter-regnum.) Their son William III married Mary, daughter of James. William II was never king of England as the #16 implies. Note that Mary Stuart was older than James, so should fit between Charles II and James II. Add a line for some space, and steal some space from the #13 box , so that you could add beside Mary of Orange a '= William II' with an arrow down to William III. Then #14 is William III and Mary, to 1694, #15 is William III to 1702, and #16 is Anne, which is the actual progression.
Thanks! I was all ready to fall on my sword and adjust the geometry. But I don't believe there is any error. (1) In Box 16, "William II" does not refer to William III's father, but rather to William III himself. In England, he was William III because he had been preceded by two Kings William. But in Scotland, there had been only one prior King William, so King Billy was known as William III in England and William II in Scotland. (2) The horizontal position of siblings and cousins refers to place in the line of succession, not chronological age. As a woman, Mary followed her younger brother in the line. Similarly, I placed the present-day Anne to the right of her younger brothers Andrew and Edward to show that she is the last of Elizabeth’s children in the line of succession. In contrast, I have the young Charlotte to the left of Louis because the rules of succession have become gender-neutral for their generation. It was an early design decision in my charts that the line of succession always goes down and to the right, except in the weird cases where the throne was in dispute. (Those cases are the reason I decided to number the boxes.)
I made an inference which you did not intend. I take your point on the positioning. I only advanced it as an easy way to fix what I saw as the problem. As 'William II & III' was directly under Mary of Orange, I took the 'II' to refer to her husband, and there was nothing to advert to William only being 'II' in Scotland. But the numbering/layout is still wrong. Mary & William preceded Anne, and William only reigned by himself before Anne. So as noted above, #14 is William II & III and Mary II, to 1694, #15 is William II & III to 1702, and #16 is Anne (to 1714). Is your sword sharp? Asking for a friend...
Swap boxes 15 and 16 and add William II & III to box 14. Only a little more space required. Although you really need an arrow from Mary of Orange down and across to William II & III (which really needs a bit of explanation: footnote!)
Wonderful, painstakingly researched charts! I like reading about the history of the British monarchy, but as you mentioned, all those Richards, Edwards, and Henrys; and Marys, Elizabeths, and Annes confuse the heck out of me. The color bars you used in the charts reminded me of piano keys. Knowing your talent, I bet you could compose a tune to go with the charts! 👍😉
Thanks, Kay! Now you have no excuse to be confused! I would write a tune, but it would have to be something like Tom Lehrer's "The Elements" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcS3NOQnsQM), only around eight or ten times as long.
Charles I was ousted by Cromwell. Charles II died of kidney failure. James II was deposed by his daughter and son-in law (William III and Mary) with the help of the Duke of Marlborough, Randolph Churchill, and Parliament.
On Charles II, have another look. Remember, Chart V is the Scottish monarchy—not the English monarchy. When Charles I was beheaded in 1649, thus vacating the thrones of England and Scotland, Charles II went north and was crowned king of Scotland. He was then ousted as king of Scotland by Cromwell’s forces in 1651. Hence, the Interregnum arrived in Scotland two years after it was fait accompli in England. On my chart, Charles II returns as king of Scotland in 1660–at the same time he was restored to the English throne. His cause of death was described as apoplectic fit, though modern researchers have theorized that it was kidney failure.
As for James VII & II, I think what I wrote is technically correct, but I can certainly add that Parliament’s actions were taken in concert with William and Mary.
The Invitation to William and Mary was sent by seven Protestant lords (five earls, a bishop, and a viscount), which led to the Dutch invasion. Marlborough's defection as commander of the Army brought much of the standing army into William's camp, which caused James to discard the Great Seal and flee to France. William then called the Convention Parliament, which ruled that James had abdicated and therefore his eldest daughter, Mary, was the proper Queen with William as King, thus acknowledging the fate accompli that William had achieved.
It is a fine point. Technically, the Parliament William called made official the abdication, but in another sense all it did was acknowledge the reality of what Churchill (Marlborough), William, and Mary had already achieved in fact.
Wonderful chart, Robert. I, myself found out through the LDS Genealogy website that I am descended from King John Lackland. Me and many, many others for sure. I'll have to sit down with your chart to see how many times removed I am from the House of Windsor....
So glad you enjoyed it! it was great fun to put together—both for the research on the lineages, but also for the geometric challenge of trying to jam so much info onto the pages while maintaining readability. … So, based on DNA patterns, it appears that at least 80% of indigenous English folk are directly descended from Edward III and close to 100% are descended from William the Conqueror. John Lackland is four generations before Edward and four generations after William. But I have no idea whether what percentage descends from John. You could be descended through a line that does not pass through Edward III. Feel free to post another comment if you have an additional revelations.
My lineage splits with King John's son, Richard of Cornwall. From there descended the surname Cornell, same family as the University, by the way. My great-great Grandmother was a Cornell directly down from him.
My chart was limited to throne of Scotland, as deaths after the Acts of Union were generally undramatic. I see that George V was likely euthanized, but I can’t find any similar claims about George VI.
Well, crap. So much for being able to watch a costume drama without being related to any of the characters (as I just did—or thought I did—with "Anne of the Thousand Days" off TCM). Malcolm, Duncan, and Kenneth MacAlpin? Directs, via a Spence colonial ancestor. Alfred the Great? Ditto. Mathilda of Flanders and William the Conqueror? Yep, via the first two Henrys and John on the wrong side of the blanket. And, actually, six of Henry I's two dozen mistresses.
Granted, with those exceptions, the relationships are pretty darned remote, so I reckon I can continue to ignore them and concentrate on the direct ancestors. With a few exceptions, like Great Aunt Aethelflaed, Lady of the Mercians, who kicked Danish behind. And Cousin Elizabeth II, because I know the two places where we share directs and I'm kind of a fan of hers.
Great job, Mr. G. ... I just didn't need to know that the whole lot of them are cousins of some sort.
The time spent doing those charts and writing my essay were worth it, if only for the opportunity to read your comment. :)
Mary and Anne were actually older than their brother James as they were born to James II and his first wife, Ann Hyde. Their brother was born to James II And his second wife, a Catholic. Because males took precedence, James should have been James III, but as already mentioned, William of Orange, aided by John Churchill and others, made sure he and his father never got back on the throne.
Thinking again. I believe that I placed James to the left of Mary and Anne to make clear that he came before them in the line of succession. Similarly, placed the present-day Anne to the right of Andrew and Edward to show that she is the last of Elizabeth’s children. In contrast, I have Charlotte to the left of Louis because the rules of succession have changed for their generation.
Thank you so much! I can certainly move them around to reflect that. I should do the same with Henry VIII’s children, moving Edward to the right of his half-sisters. I believe I structured it that way prior to adding in the numbers—to show their sequence on the throne. With the numbers, there’s no need for that compromise. I’ll eventually replace the chart with a new one. Thanks again.
Hello from the UK
Fascinating, quite a work to produces those charts. I tried something simpler, a run down of the kings and queens of England from Alfred the Great. from my WordPress site.
https://alphaandomegacloud.wordpress.com/2022/03/19/k-is-for-kings/
Thanks for catching that the Dowager Electress Sophia, a Tough Old Girl, ALMOST became Queen, missing her chance by six weeks. She was 84 at time of sudden death and would have been Britain's oldest new sovereign. But Edward IV of England may have been illegitimate and NOT his father's son---yes, there has been a serious TV show on this--so an Australian should be--IS!!!--The Rightful King--except that on being interviewed/confronted HM stated he felt the Monarchy should be abolished.
I had never heard the story of the Earls of Loudoun (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Abney-Hastings,_14th_Earl_of_Loudoun) and their putative claim on the throne. My guess is that if you did a full DNA series of British royalty and their descendants, the lines leading to the various "rightful" heirs would begin to resemble a map of British Rail lines--with just as many terminal junctions: (https://assets.ctfassets.net/e8xgegruud3g/7upVzC0HFVkvNXWGAT1Dfx/b7fad1b34bdb167591c9e586d1b08d4f/National_Rail_Route_Diagram_Dec_22.pdf)
And yes, I have an amateur historian's soft spot for Sophia. From what I know of her, she stands out among royals as being relatively stable and unaffected.
Egypt would take a lot more than 5 charts!
Norway and Denmark would be a good project. Spain with its extensions to and into Austria and France would likely be a much more involved project. Even get some Greek and therefore Danish bits too. Sweden would be short if you only bothered with the last group: Bernadotte from 1812(?).
Nice ideas. Unlikely unless, as you suggested, someone pays me. :) I did these five because my wife and I were planning a trip to Great Britain, and we watched a load of movies and TV shows on English/Scottish/British history. She would ask whether this Edward or Henry was the same as that Edward or Henry, and I started scribbling out little charts to indicate the relationships between all the characters we were seeing. The charts got more elaborate. My handwriting is pretty bad, so I shifted to doing them in Excel. It just kept going till I had finished all five. They did come in REALLY handy as we traveled about Britain. ... ... ... We have no trips planned, and the movies and TV series on these other thrones are few and far between. So the motives that led to these charts are unlikely to exist for any other country.
Bravo BTW. This is so excellent. Maybe the Danish, Swedish and Spanish monarchies should hire you to do the same for them! The interlocking relationships are impossible to keep track of. (The ouiji board also says 'stay away from Germany. There madness lies'.
Thanks much! For the right price, I'll do their charts, as well. :) Someone asked me about Ireland. But Ireland always had regional kings, and to my knowledge, they had no interaction with the British or Continental royals. The most interesting are the Ptolemys of Egypt--with their icky habit of sibling-marriage. http://www.strangehistory.net/2013/12/25/14742/
A slight error in chart 2, numbers 14 through 16. Mary of Orange, sister of James VII & II (#13) married William II of Orange. (They sheltered Charles II during the inter-regnum.) Their son William III married Mary, daughter of James. William II was never king of England as the #16 implies. Note that Mary Stuart was older than James, so should fit between Charles II and James II. Add a line for some space, and steal some space from the #13 box , so that you could add beside Mary of Orange a '= William II' with an arrow down to William III. Then #14 is William III and Mary, to 1694, #15 is William III to 1702, and #16 is Anne, which is the actual progression.
Thanks! I was all ready to fall on my sword and adjust the geometry. But I don't believe there is any error. (1) In Box 16, "William II" does not refer to William III's father, but rather to William III himself. In England, he was William III because he had been preceded by two Kings William. But in Scotland, there had been only one prior King William, so King Billy was known as William III in England and William II in Scotland. (2) The horizontal position of siblings and cousins refers to place in the line of succession, not chronological age. As a woman, Mary followed her younger brother in the line. Similarly, I placed the present-day Anne to the right of her younger brothers Andrew and Edward to show that she is the last of Elizabeth’s children in the line of succession. In contrast, I have the young Charlotte to the left of Louis because the rules of succession have become gender-neutral for their generation. It was an early design decision in my charts that the line of succession always goes down and to the right, except in the weird cases where the throne was in dispute. (Those cases are the reason I decided to number the boxes.)
I made an inference which you did not intend. I take your point on the positioning. I only advanced it as an easy way to fix what I saw as the problem. As 'William II & III' was directly under Mary of Orange, I took the 'II' to refer to her husband, and there was nothing to advert to William only being 'II' in Scotland. But the numbering/layout is still wrong. Mary & William preceded Anne, and William only reigned by himself before Anne. So as noted above, #14 is William II & III and Mary II, to 1694, #15 is William II & III to 1702, and #16 is Anne (to 1714). Is your sword sharp? Asking for a friend...
And I did a degree at the College of William and Mary. :)
AHHH! Now I see. There is a problem with the number. I will have to figure the best way to fix that. Much appreciated.
Swap boxes 15 and 16 and add William II & III to box 14. Only a little more space required. Although you really need an arrow from Mary of Orange down and across to William II & III (which really needs a bit of explanation: footnote!)
I'll work on it! Thanks again.
Similar fix/swap needed on the last line of the Scottish chart
Mary's "fever" was smallpox. There was a big outbreak at the time.
One of the factors pushing research into variolation & vaccination.
Thank you! Fascinating and so appreciated!
Delighted! It was was fun and challenging to assemble. Hope you'll subscribe to Bastiat's Window, if you don't already.
Wonderful, painstakingly researched charts! I like reading about the history of the British monarchy, but as you mentioned, all those Richards, Edwards, and Henrys; and Marys, Elizabeths, and Annes confuse the heck out of me. The color bars you used in the charts reminded me of piano keys. Knowing your talent, I bet you could compose a tune to go with the charts! 👍😉
Thanks, Kay! Now you have no excuse to be confused! I would write a tune, but it would have to be something like Tom Lehrer's "The Elements" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcS3NOQnsQM), only around eight or ten times as long.
Haha! You could do way better than Lehrer!
He was pretty good! In 1973, I called him on the phone to ask whether he’d come to UVA to do a concert. Had a funny conversation, but he declined.
That’s amazing!
Fabulously well done, and even better - utterly fascinating!
Thank you on both counts!
Charles I was ousted by Cromwell. Charles II died of kidney failure. James II was deposed by his daughter and son-in law (William III and Mary) with the help of the Duke of Marlborough, Randolph Churchill, and Parliament.
On Charles II, have another look. Remember, Chart V is the Scottish monarchy—not the English monarchy. When Charles I was beheaded in 1649, thus vacating the thrones of England and Scotland, Charles II went north and was crowned king of Scotland. He was then ousted as king of Scotland by Cromwell’s forces in 1651. Hence, the Interregnum arrived in Scotland two years after it was fait accompli in England. On my chart, Charles II returns as king of Scotland in 1660–at the same time he was restored to the English throne. His cause of death was described as apoplectic fit, though modern researchers have theorized that it was kidney failure.
As for James VII & II, I think what I wrote is technically correct, but I can certainly add that Parliament’s actions were taken in concert with William and Mary.
Thank you so much for the advice
The Invitation to William and Mary was sent by seven Protestant lords (five earls, a bishop, and a viscount), which led to the Dutch invasion. Marlborough's defection as commander of the Army brought much of the standing army into William's camp, which caused James to discard the Great Seal and flee to France. William then called the Convention Parliament, which ruled that James had abdicated and therefore his eldest daughter, Mary, was the proper Queen with William as King, thus acknowledging the fate accompli that William had achieved.
It is a fine point. Technically, the Parliament William called made official the abdication, but in another sense all it did was acknowledge the reality of what Churchill (Marlborough), William, and Mary had already achieved in fact.
Great clarification. Thanks so much.
Wonderful chart, Robert. I, myself found out through the LDS Genealogy website that I am descended from King John Lackland. Me and many, many others for sure. I'll have to sit down with your chart to see how many times removed I am from the House of Windsor....
So glad you enjoyed it! it was great fun to put together—both for the research on the lineages, but also for the geometric challenge of trying to jam so much info onto the pages while maintaining readability. … So, based on DNA patterns, it appears that at least 80% of indigenous English folk are directly descended from Edward III and close to 100% are descended from William the Conqueror. John Lackland is four generations before Edward and four generations after William. But I have no idea whether what percentage descends from John. You could be descended through a line that does not pass through Edward III. Feel free to post another comment if you have an additional revelations.
My lineage splits with King John's son, Richard of Cornwall. From there descended the surname Cornell, same family as the University, by the way. My great-great Grandmother was a Cornell directly down from him.
Interesting! Any connection to the artist, Joseph Cornell?
Probably, but can't be sure. It seems as though most, if not all, Cornells were derived from the same.
I suggest you missed in the gory diagram at the end that George VI was euthanised by his doctor.
My chart was limited to throne of Scotland, as deaths after the Acts of Union were generally undramatic. I see that George V was likely euthanized, but I can’t find any similar claims about George VI.
Sorry, I believe I meant George V.
Yes. It seems they wanted his death reported in the morning papers, and not the less respectable afternoon papers.