House of Hanover Question

Which seems more likely if a name change ever came about:

Westminster, London, Britain, Buckingham or Wessex
I would discount the middle three because "Britain" is far too generic and is already part of the Royal titles (in the form "United Kingdom of Great Britain..."), Buckingham has been awarded before to lesser nobles, and London just lacks panache. :p
 
I would discount the middle three because "Britain" is far too generic and is already part of the Royal titles (in the form "United Kingdom of Great Britain..."), Buckingham has been awarded before to lesser nobles, and London just lacks panache. :p

Lol alright. So Westminster or Wessex, hmm interesting. One could harken to the Wesminster government, and the crown's support of it, the other, well the other could be the old days of strength in numbers.
 
I would discount the middle three because "Britain" is far too generic and is already part of the Royal titles (in the form "United Kingdom of Great Britain..."), Buckingham has been awarded before to lesser nobles, and London just lacks panache. :p

Actually I would think that's a greater reason to have "Britain" be the dynastic title. I mean the Hannoverians are colloquially called the "House of Hannover" because they were the - surprise surprise - Electors of Hannover

But yes, Buckingham is a big nono, especially when it's a non-royal dukedom.

But on the contrary, if let's say William IV's descendants were the ones who had instituted the name change, perhaps the House of Clarence would be possible (or some other Duke of Clarence's descendant) ;););)

And yes, Wessex does sound the best, but I don't know if some may think that it relates too much to the word Saxon - and thus Saxony/Sachsen
 
Actually I would think that's a greater reason to have "Britain" be the dynastic title. I mean the Hannoverians are colloquially called the "House of Hannover" because they were the - surprise surprise - Electors of Hannover

But yes, Buckingham is a big nono, especially when it's a non-royal dukedom.

But on the contrary, if let's say William IV's descendants were the ones who had instituted the name change, perhaps the House of Clarence would be possible (or some other Duke of Clarence's descendant) ;););)

And yes, Wessex does sound the best, but I don't know if some may think that it relates too much to the word Saxon - and thus Saxony/Sachsen
Hmm interesting Clarence does sound good. I suppose Westminster would be out the cards
 
IIRC William IV used the name Guelph in his earlier naval career.
Interesting, on that note, how likely could it be that the Royal family continue to hold actual active roles within the military and navy through seeing combat etc?
 
Interesting, on that note, how likely could it be that the Royal family continue to hold actual active roles within the military and navy through seeing combat etc?

Prince Alfred, Victoria's 2nd Son, Commanded the Mediterranean Fleet
George VI was at Jutland.
His brother Henry, Duke of Gloucester was Wounded in Action in 1940 serving with the BEF in France.
Prince Philip commanded the Searchlights that Lit-Up the Italian Cruisers at Matapan.
Prince Andrew served aboard HMS Invincible during The Falklands War.

They've never stopped!
 
Prince Alfred, Victoria's 2nd Son, Commanded the Mediterranean Fleet
George VI was at Jutland.
His brother Henry, Duke of Gloucester was Wounded in Action in 1940 serving with the BEF in France.
Prince Philip commanded the Searchlights that Lit-Up the Italian Cruisers at Matapan.
Prince Andrew served aboard HMS Invincible during The Falklands War.

They've never stopped!
Ah very true aha.

Hmm, Frederick was a commander in the army could went see all military matters be handled by the crown?
 
Ah very true aha.

Hmm, Frederick was a commander in the army could went see all military matters be handled by the crown?

The Prussian and later Imperial German Armies had a lot of command positions filled by Royal Princes, often with questionable qualifications for the role. During WWI Crown Prince Wilhelm was catapulted into command of an Army Group, despite never having commanded anything larger than a Regiment. The Crown Prince of Bavaria likewise achieved High Command, however he did appear to have worked for his promotion, being a General Pre-War and actually commanding at least a Corps on active service.
(There is some opinion that the General Staff evolved to deal with this very situation).
The British Royal Family often hold very senior ranks without actually being in command of anything, Prince Charles is a Field Marshal, Admiral of the Fleet and Marshal of the Royal Air Force, and his largest ever command was a Minesweeper.

Having a successful military, and an Empire, requires some competence, although outright insanity is not necessarily a drawback.
Birth is no guarantee of ability, though self-confidence can take you a long way. And many of Britain's noted commanders were men of relatively humble means. Nelson was the son of a country parson, Garnet Wolseley was the son of a Dublin Shopkeeper, and on more than one occasion men joined as Privates and Retired as Generals, or even Field Marshals.

A British Army has not been commanded in Battle by a reigning Monarch since George II, Dettingen in 1743, successfully.
 
The Prussian and later Imperial German Armies had a lot of command positions filled by Royal Princes, often with questionable qualifications for the role. During WWI Crown Prince Wilhelm was catapulted into command of an Army Group, despite never having commanded anything larger than a Regiment. The Crown Prince of Bavaria likewise achieved High Command, however he did appear to have worked for his promotion, being a General Pre-War and actually commanding at least a Corps on active service.
(There is some opinion that the General Staff evolved to deal with this very situation).
The British Royal Family often hold very senior ranks without actually being in command of anything, Prince Charles is a Field Marshal, Admiral of the Fleet and Marshal of the Royal Air Force, and his largest ever command was a Minesweeper.

Having a successful military, and an Empire, requires some competence, although outright insanity is not necessarily a drawback.
Birth is no guarantee of ability, though self-confidence can take you a long way. And many of Britain's noted commanders were men of relatively humble means. Nelson was the son of a country parson, Garnet Wolseley was the son of a Dublin Shopkeeper, and on more than one occasion men joined as Privates and Retired as Generals, or even Field Marshals.

A British Army has not been commanded in Battle by a reigning Monarch since George II, Dettingen in 1743, successfully.
This is very true. I do wonder though that if you have a capable member of the family in the army or navy what difference that could make.
 
Top