Real "English" Royalty

To also clear something up the goal was not to get an Englishman on the throne if it was I would agree with you guys on the people you brought up, the goal was to get an English noble house on the throne.
In that case, if we assume a post 1066 PoD, and look past the first twenty or so years, when Edgar might feasibly make a play provided the right conditions occur, then how would you view a son and grandson of Edward VI? If Edward, then possibly a Henry IX and Edward VII, had followed Henry VIII, father to son, would they count? Or would the house of Tudor still be considered Welsh?

If that's not doable, then what about if John de la Pole can defeat Henry VII in 1487. The unfortunate Lambert Simnel dies, and John assumes the throne as John II, of the house de lap Pole. Would that count as a Cadet branch of the Yorkist branch of the Plantagenets, or would it be a new house under your rules?

I'm not trying to be snarky, just trying to make sure I have the parameters of your challenge worked out properly.
 
Because being American wasn't a concept until right before the Seven Years War, and even during the war only about 30 something percent want to stop being subjects of George III

The whole "1/3 were patriots and 1/3 we loyalists" is just an offhand estimate by John Adams, who did not conduct extensive polling. More likely estimates put the number around 15%, less than half of that figure.

As for this French and Spanish settlers most certainly did not speak English. My intention was to include natives in the comment my mistake on that. And look at what happened the French and Spanish (especially French merchants) learned other European languages and Native languages to better trade, the English on the other hand would not learn another language and used the fact that they didn't speak English as a reason for war.

What French and Spanish settlers were there in the colonial America you're speaking of in the 1760s? Animosity that the colonists felt towards those two groups was motivated by a) religious differences and b) Parliamentary restrictions on English settlement. There weren't too many Spanish and French settlers outside of Spanish and French territory until well after the Revolution. At which point, the early Americans (those descended from the Anglo-American colonists) were biased against pretty much everyone, regardless of their language (Irish need not apply, and all that jazz).

And where do you have this evidence that the British refused to learn other languages and used linguistic differences as a casus belli? I'm curious how they managed to ally with the Iroquois and the Cherokee (among others) if they held this attitude.

You guys do realize that this thread was not supposed to be taken this seriously? It was simply just put an Anglo-Saxon family on the throne of England after the Norman Conquest

We take history seriously, oddly enough. Particularly when it comes to dispelling misconceptions. A discussion of how to restore an Anglo-Saxon monarchy to England is certainly a worthwhile discussion, but if you don't want people to respond to tangental points, you probably shouldn't include throwaway lines attacking the subject matter.
 
Would getting the Percy's on the throne instead of Bollingbroke count? They were certainly involved with Mortimer and Glyndwr about a tripartite split of power, gaining power over most of England north of a line joining the Wash and the Mersey (if it had gone ahead).
 
Would getting the Percy's on the throne instead of Bollingbroke count? They were certainly involved with Mortimer and Glyndwr about a tripartite split of power, gaining power over most of England north of a line joining the Wash and the Mersey (if it had gone ahead).
If I recall correctly, wouldn't Mortimer have been nominally in charge of the whole thing, just with Glyndwr and Percy having power almost akin to a king below him?
 
What French and Spanish settlers were there in the colonial America you're speaking of in the 1760s? Animosity that the colonists felt towards those two groups was motivated by a) religious differences and b) Parliamentary restrictions on English settlement. There weren't too many Spanish and French settlers outside of Spanish and French territory until well after the Revolution. At which point, the early Americans (those descended from the Anglo-American colonists) were biased against pretty much everyone, regardless of their language (Irish need not apply, and all that jazz).

First, I brought up the Seven Wars War as a reference point because I was referring to the period of time before then at the time e.i. 1600s. Second, Quebec was most certainly French, and most certainly under English rule after it was conquered. Third I was referring to activities between the colonies of the different nations

And I know early Americans were biased against everyone, speak French in school was one of the worst things you could do well into my grandparents generation.
 
And where do you have this evidence that the British refused to learn other languages and used linguistic differences as a casus belli? I'm curious how they managed to ally with the Iroquois and the Cherokee (among others) if they held this attitude.

For the first part visit an area that is not populated by English first, and do some research there.

And as for the casus belli poor choice of words on my part, more so that it was a propaganda tool to drum up support for a conflict, again focusing on the 1600ish time period
 
In that case, if we assume a post 1066 PoD, and look past the first twenty or so years, when Edgar might feasibly make a play provided the right conditions occur, then how would you view a son and grandson of Edward VI? If Edward, then possibly a Henry IX and Edward VII, had followed Henry VIII, father to son, would they count? Or would the house of Tudor still be considered Welsh?

If that's not doable, then what about if John de la Pole can defeat Henry VII in 1487. The unfortunate Lambert Simnel dies, and John assumes the throne as John II, of the house de lap Pole. Would that count as a Cadet branch of the Yorkist branch of the Plantagenets, or would it be a new house under your rules?

Edward VI and them afterward would not count as the House of Tudor was Welsh when it gained the throne.

The House of de la Pole would work because from what I can see because it doesn't seem to me as a proper cadet branch of York, and it was fully anglicized before it would have taken the throne.
 
Would getting the Percy's on the throne instead of Bollingbroke count? They were certainly involved with Mortimer and Glyndwr about a tripartite split of power, gaining power over most of England north of a line joining the Wash and the Mersey (if it had gone ahead).

If you can work it out Percy should count.
 
Realistically speaking if William the Conqueror falls off his horse and dies shortly after taking over but before the harrying of the north you could easily have an English king take over in a rebellion against the new king.
 
The de la Poles are just as Welsh as the Tudors (the name refers to Welshpool).

The Percys are Norman, as are the Mortimers.

The only family I can find that would work as an option under this thread's incredibly stringent rules - assuming we discount William I dying before 1070 and only leaving underage sons to contest Egdar Aetheling - would be the Earls of Lothian/Dunbar, the Gospatricssons, who were heavily influential in Anglo-Scottish politics until the reign of James I of Scotland.
 
The de la Poles are just as Welsh as the Tudors (the name refers to Welshpool).

The Percys are Norman, as are the Mortimers.

The only family I can find that would work as an option under this thread's incredibly stringent rules - assuming we discount William I dying before 1070 and only leaving underage sons to contest Egdar Aetheling - would be the Earls of Lothian/Dunbar, the Gospatricssons, who were heavily influential in Anglo-Scottish politics until the reign of James I of Scotland.

The key is being "anglicized" prior to become king, Henry VII the first king of the House of Tudor was Welsh, making the House of Tudor Welsh. If someone from the House of Percy becomes king after they were "anglicized" then it would count as English.
 
First, I brought up the Seven Wars War as a reference point because I was referring to the period of time before then at the time e.i. 1600s. Second, Quebec was most certainly French, and most certainly under English rule after it was conquered. Third I was referring to activities between the colonies of the different nations

I'm quite confused now. You're bringing up events from the 18th century to make a point about the 17th century? How does that work?

Yes, Quebec was and is French. And it was under British rule after the French and Indian Wars. But there weren't many English settlers there, since the Quebec Act gave the French Catholics plenty of autonomy to conduct their colony in their own way. What English settlers there weren't in much of a position to try to enforce their language on the French in Quebec, due to simple demographics.

Can you show any evidence that the colonists or the governments were motivated by linguistic differences? It would seem to me that the Quebec Act flies directly in the face of this assertion. The moment the British had their hands on a large chunk of French subjects in Quebec, they didn't seem all that eager to try to teach them all English.

And I know early Americans were biased against everyone, speak French in school was one of the worst things you could do well into my grandparents generation.

Your grandparents generation? Unless you're *far* older than I am, I'm going to have to doubt that. I grew up in Massachusetts, and, up into my mother's generation (she was born in the 50s), classes in our town were still taught half in French for the French speaking population (the town had more Catholic schools than public schools). The only real problems were with the Poles, because they taught their kids half in Polish instead. My grandfather was raised in a French-speaking home (born in the 1910s), and my grandparents were married in a French Mass. There was never any problems for them, nor for the previous generation.

Now, perhaps your family was from a different part of the United States, but Massachusetts was pretty WASPy and it managed to accommodate all those French Catholics by the late 19th and early 20th centuries pretty reasonably.

For the first part visit an area that is not populated by English first, and do some research there.

On what basis are you assuming that I am ignorant about which I speak? Simply that I am disagreeing with your assertions for which you have provided nothing other than anecdotal evidence about your own family's experiences?

And as for the casus belli poor choice of words on my part, more so that it was a propaganda tool to drum up support for a conflict, again focusing on the 1600ish time period

Again, in the 17th century, any propaganda was going to focus mostly on Catholicism vs. Protestantism, rather than language.

So, I ask you:
- What examples are there of propaganda based on language from this period ?
- What examples are there of the government forcing other Europeans to learn English (to be sure, the United States did attempt to force English on American Indian tribes in the 19th century)?
- What is, in a concise description, your point about Anglophone supremacy?
 
I'm quite confused now. You're bringing up events from the 18th century to make a point about the 17th century? How does that work?

I brought it up to point out that people didn't start thinking of themselves as American rather than British until then.

Yes, Quebec was and is French. And it was under British rule after the French and Indian Wars. But there weren't many English settlers there, since the Quebec Act gave the French Catholics plenty of autonomy to conduct their colony in their own way. What English settlers there weren't in much of a position to try to enforce their language on the French in Quebec, due to simple demographics.

Can you show any evidence that the colonists or the governments were motivated by linguistic differences? It would seem to me that the Quebec Act flies directly in the face of this assertion. The moment the British had their hands on a large chunk of French subjects in Quebec, they didn't seem all that eager to try to teach them all English.
Right after the American Revolution there was a tremendous amount of English in modern day Quebec, mostly Loyalist fleeing the United States that is why Britain split the territory into Upper Canada and Lower Canada not long after to easy the tensions, and tell the members of the Lower Canada Rebellion that the British didn't have too much control over them.



Your grandparents generation? Unless you're *far* older than I am, I'm going to have to doubt that. I grew up in Massachusetts, and, up into my mother's generation (she was born in the 50s), classes in our town were still taught half in French for the French speaking population (the town had more Catholic schools than public schools). The only real problems were with the Poles, because they taught their kids half in Polish instead. My grandfather was raised in a French-speaking home (born in the 1910s), and my grandparents were married in a French Mass. There was never any problems for them, nor for the previous generation.

Now, perhaps your family was from a different part of the United States, but Massachusetts was pretty WASPy and it managed to accommodate all those French Catholics by the late 19th and early 20th centuries pretty reasonably.
Actually my mother is a little younger than yours, I live in Maine so things were pretty bad, even in the area were the French settled before English speakers. Lets just say if your grandfather lived in some areas here, lets just he was 10 he would have been able to see many protest parades against the French in broad daylight, and worse.



On what basis are you assuming that I am ignorant about which I speak? Simply that I am disagreeing with your assertions for which you have provided nothing other than anecdotal evidence about your own family's experiences?

Sorry if I come off like that, not my intent I just get exited for arguments



Again, in the 17th century, any propaganda was going to focus mostly on Catholicism vs. Protestantism, rather than language.

So, I ask you:
- What examples are there of propaganda based on language from this period ?
- What examples are there of the government forcing other Europeans to learn English (to be sure, the United States did attempt to force English on American Indian tribes in the 19th century)?
- What is, in a concise description, your point about Anglophone supremacy?
I agree with you most of the propaganda was focused on religion,
-I can't remember which seal it is of the top of my head, but there is a seal in the US with an Native American on it saying something along the lines of "Come help us" it comes from the idea that the first English settlers saw it as their job to civilize the Americas, part of that was teaching knowledge and part of that was English, except the English version of doing this turned out to be remove the previous inhabitants and replace them. This example is still relevant because they continued to use the idea of "come help us" well after it was common practice for them to eliminate the natives to replace them, also a similar thing happened to the Acadians in Nova Scotia.

-Actually the region I live in right now the first public schools were set up for the expressed purpose of forcing English on the children and teaching the "French" out of them.
Also a modern example but still applies, prior to easy road access to the area (prior to WWII) two type of generational traders have been coming to the area for generations, these were non-English (referring to culture they still spoke English) and the English. The Non-English would learn French because coming here and not speaking French was like going to France and not speaking French. The English traders would force the people to speak English to do business because they wouldn't do business with them if they didn't.
 
Right after the American Revolution there was a tremendous amount of English in modern day Quebec, mostly Loyalist fleeing the United States that is why Britain split the territory into Upper Canada and Lower Canada not long after to easy the tensions, and tell the members of the Lower Canada Rebellion that the British didn't have too much control over them.

Seems like you're conflating the local English settlers with the British government again, because I never said that the British didn't have much control over them.

Actually my mother is a little younger than yours, I live in Maine so things were pretty bad, even in the area were the French settled before English speakers. Lets just say if your grandfather lived in some areas here, lets just he was 10 he would have been able to see many protest parades against the French in broad daylight, and worse.

My grandmother's family was from Wells. Could you ask your family if those anti-French parades were motivated by language or religion or some other issue?

I agree with you most of the propaganda was focused on religion,
-I can't remember which seal it is of the top of my head, but there is a seal in the US with an Native American on it saying something along the lines of "Come help us" it comes from the idea that the first English settlers saw it as their job to civilize the Americas, part of that was teaching knowledge and part of that was English, except the English version of doing this turned out to be remove the previous inhabitants and replace them. This example is still relevant because they continued to use the idea of "come help us" well after it was common practice for them to eliminate the natives to replace them, also a similar thing happened to the Acadians in Nova Scotia.

That would be the Seal of Colonial Massachusetts in the 17th century. As for the Acadians, without excusing the British treatment of them, there were political concerns there, insofar as the Acadians were not submitting to British authority peaceably.

-Actually the region I live in right now the first public schools were set up for the expressed purpose of forcing English on the children and teaching the "French" out of them.

A large part of the support for public schools in New England was to stifle Catholicism, in the Blaine Amendments (named after Congressman Blaine, of Maine).
 
My grandmother's family was from Wells. Could you ask your family if those anti-French parades were motivated by language or religion or some other issue?

I would if I could, unfortunately the members of my family who were old enough at the time to remember aren't around anymore, and even if they were I doubt they would even talk about it, most people who lived through it won't, I had to learn what I know through my history teachers and personal research. I can tell you they were motivated by everything, individual reasons tend to loose meaning at that point. Do a quick Google Images search for "first daylight parade milo maine" an you'll probably understand exactly what I mean.


That would be the Seal of Colonial Massachusetts in the 17th century. As for the Acadians, without excusing the British treatment of them, there were political concerns there, insofar as the Acadians were not submitting to British authority peaceably.

The Acadians non-submission was them penning in "we will not fight the French or the Mi'kmaq" something the British wouldn't have drafted them for anyway



A large part of the support for public schools in New England was to stifle Catholicism, in the Blaine Amendments (named after Congressman Blaine, of Maine).

Yes, and in the very far north (you can see Canada from your bedroom window north) were the French concentration was 80% preferred method of doing this was to force them to speak English so their family couldn't pass on their traditions and religion.
 
I think describing the Tudors as Welsh is stretching it a bit -
Henry VII's father was half Welsh - Henry himself had an English mother(albeit a cadet of the house of plantagenet) and a French grandmother and was educated largely abroad.

Edward VI and Elizabeth I have very strong domestic (British antecedents) if you discount their grandfather Henry VII - their first foreign ancestor is Jacquetta de St Pol Duchess of Bedford and Countess Rivers (great great grandmother)

Edward IV and Richard III's ancestry is largely English aristocratic - in both cases the nearest "foreign" ancestry is three generations back (Isabella of Castile, Duchess of York for example)

Depends on your premise of course - but how far back do your antecedents have to go to be considered English?

The majority of the British or English aristocracy by the 15th century have been there for five centuries are they still Norman?

In terms of what makes your nationality how long does you family have to be settled in a country to be considered part of that country's make up?
 
I think describing the Tudors as Welsh is stretching it a bit -
Henry VII's father was half Welsh - Henry himself had an English mother(albeit a cadet of the house of plantagenet) and a French grandmother and was educated largely abroad.

Edward VI and Elizabeth I have very strong domestic (British antecedents) if you discount their grandfather Henry VII - their first foreign ancestor is Jacquetta de St Pol Duchess of Bedford and Countess Rivers (great great grandmother)

Edward IV and Richard III's ancestry is largely English aristocratic - in both cases the nearest "foreign" ancestry is three generations back (Isabella of Castile, Duchess of York for example)

Depends on your premise of course - but how far back do your antecedents have to go to be considered English?

The majority of the British or English aristocracy by the 15th century have been there for five centuries are they still Norman?

In terms of what makes your nationality how long does you family have to be settled in a country to be considered part of that country's make up?

Rule of thumb for this thread, Norman families are ok after the Hundred Years' War, unless they are a cadet of Plantagenet, which is because their claim comes from Plantagenet which is counted as French
 
If you want to go by documented male-line ancestry only, then Queen Victoria was an Italian.

This would be a reference to Azzo II of Este (1009-1097), Victoria's great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather.

The intervening 19 generations were all German.
 
This would be a reference to Azzo II of Este (1009-1097), Victoria's great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather.

The intervening 19 generations were all German.

By sane principles, of course, not the ones this thread runs on.

POSTSCRIPT--Though to be fair Welf Welf and his son were odd ducks, equally at home in German and Italian politics, with ambitions in Milan and Tuscany.
 
Top