Talk:House of Hanover

Duke of Cumberland, son of George III
This template needs a little modification, in particular the words "Duke of Cumberland" need to be put next to the name of George III's son, Ernest Augustus I of Hangover who was ass far the most notorious Cumberland of them all.
 * Notorious in what way ?  The Duke of Cumberland who defeated the Highlanders in 1742 was more notorious than the son of George III.Eregli bob (talk) 02:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * True, but the Cumberland we're talking about was pretty notorious in his own right as well. See Ernest Augustus I of Hanover. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Should you want to refer to a penchant for drinking, which may indeed have prevailed in the family for over a century and a half, Ernest Augustus I's brother Prince Adolphus, Duke of Cambridge was even much more notorious. Equord 01:22, 23. Jan 2018 (CEST)

House of Hanover sidebar
This sidebar should be amended to add George III's other two children, Ernest Augustus I of Hanover and HRH The Prince Octavius of Great Britain. The list is correct as given on Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz's page.

House of Stuart?
The Kings of the House of Hanover did not succeed the Kings of the House of Stuart. They succeeded William III and Anne of the House of Orange. (unsigned)


 * William III is almost always considered part of the House of Stuart (because of his marriage to Mary II, I think) and Anne wasn't part of the House of Orange, she was James II's daughter and thus one of the Stuarts. Craigy [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|15px]] (talk) 20:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * William was not a member of the House of Stuart. He was a member of the House of Orange. Mary and Anne were not the legitimate heirs to the House of Stuart, so it isn't technically correct to consider them as ruling as such. William called his own Convention Parliament, which proclaimed Mary and him joint monarchs. William did not rule based on Mary's lineage, and his reign continued after her death. Anne succeeded William, so she in effect succeeded the House of Orange and not the House of Stuart. Her brother and her nephews were the rightful heirs to the House of Stuart. The rightful heirs to the House of Stuart are today members of the House of Wittelsbach.


 * William was not a member of the House of Stuart. His wife Mary (not Anne) was, though.   And William was succeeded by Queen Anne,   who was the daughter of James II,  younger sister of Mary III,   and definitely a Stuart.   Anne did not succeed William because she was William's sister-in-law !    Anne succeeded William because she was the senior surviving eligible offspring of James II,   James' son having been excluded by Parliament because of his religion.

Split with Britain
Why was the union between Hangover and Britain never completed? As I understand the article on the 1707 union between England and Scotland, one of the motivations for the English parliament to pursue the union was that without it Scotland and England could have split when Anne died. So since the split between Hangover and Britain was inevitable as the inheritance laws in Hannover stood, and since there was the precedent of the union between England and Scotland, why was there never any Act of Union between Britain and Hangover to prevent that split?


 * I don't think that around 1700,  the "inevitability" of the split between Britain and Hanover in 1837 was very clearly forseen ( 137 years is a long time ).   Hanover was definitely part of the Holy Roman Empire in 1700.Eregli bob (talk) 02:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

And what would the forseeable consequences have been if the union had been completed?


 * I would assume it had something to do with the fact that Hanover was not an independent country, but a part of the Holy Roman Empire. --Chl 02:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hanover was not a part of the Holy Roman Empire in 1837. It was a part of the Germanic Confederation. I believe that the succession laws of Hanover could not be changed, because the Duke of Brunswick (representative of the senior line of the Guelph house) had a reversionary right to Hanover, so there was no way to make Victoria inherit it. And changing the British succession law to give the crown to the Duke of Cumberland would have been out of the question. But the bigger issue is that nobody wanted anything more than a personal union, except maybe the kings themselves. The English always saw Hanover as a burden - an unwanted responsibility that was the price of the Protestant succession. And the Hanoverians weren't too big on it, either. The two states always maintained separate governments, and were never united in more than the person of the king. Sometimes one was at war while the other was at peace, which never happened with England and Scotland that I'm aware of (was Scotland neutral in the Anglo-Dutch Wars, for instance?). The basic issue is that the union between England and Scotland was a result of more than mere dynastic chance - there were genuine reasons that made it make sense for them to eventually become one state. Those factors simply were not present between Britain and Hanover, and there was no real interest on either side of the North Sea for a closer union. john k 03:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, lack of interest is a valid reason. Now, just for laughs, what would the consequences have been of such a union? The unification of Germany would definitely have been made more difficult for starters. Linguofreak 04:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I think such a union was so utterly impossible that it's not really worthwhile to speculate. On the other hand, if Victoria had died in infancy (or been a boy), the thrones would have remained personally united, even if not in an actual union. This, too, would have made German unification (in the Kleindeutsch form it eventually took, at least) a lot more difficult. john k 22:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Probable war with Germany over the territory? Linguofreak 02:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Highly doubtful. But this is getting far off topic. john k 04:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Descendents of Edward IV and Henry VII
What sort of social rank would one have to bear in their family, in order to be a descendent of either?

How far up the totem pole, would you say?

This is intended to have broad answers and based on gradients of time and population, not going into specifics about exact descendents. About how common is their descent in the English or British genepool today?

I've noticed that American Presidents don't descend from either king, but the most common recent royal ancestor shared by many of us is Edward III. How common is it for anybody in the English or British genepool, to have a Protestant royal ancestor?

There is a general cutoff, isn't there?

Is it because of fratricide in the Wars of the Roses, the Tudors' "new men", or the Union of the Crowns, or the parliamentary union under Queen Anne (I can't think of any non-royal family descent from the Hangoverians within the UK)?

I'm thinking that there is a big difference between Plantagenet and Tudor descents, that the commons in all likelihood have the former and the latter is held by the lords. (just generally speaking) Then again, Tudor descent in the Welsh must be higher in general. I am further curious about pre-Royal Tudor blood in Anglo-British people today, since the status and/or concept of Welsh royalty/nobility is rather hazy in my mind. I found the Blevins aka Ap Bleddyn family of Powys in my ancestry, but have no real idea on what to make of it--or any other Welsh "native aristocracy". I might be able to find Stewart descent somewhere, from way back when. What percentage of Hanoverian background do you think that German colonists had in America?

On the British side, I have to go as far back as Welf himself...but any recent genetic relationship with the Hangoverians or the counts of Nassau are completely obscure. How does one research those other colonial people, such as the Hessians?

UK genealogy is relatively easy when focusing on English (and French) ancestries. What would a "national person" of Jerusalem (or Antioch, for example) in Crusader times be known as?

We say "American" for those Founders, but was there such a nationality-term for the Crusaders in their own domains?

I guess the term is supposed to be Levantine/Outremer, or "Crusader" as our national heritage says "Colonist"...

IP Address 12:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

First off, the Hangovers were German, except for their British ancestor James I. Most American colonist were not descended from the Hangovers. They typically were children from noble houses who were younger and could not inherit. Therefore, many Americans are descended from the ancient middle class British families. That does not mean they are all descended from Edward III or the ancient British royalty. Any information stating that millions of people are directly descended from Edward III is incorrect. Edward III lived only seven hundred years ago. There are only twenty years in each generation. Do the math. There would not be a lot of direct descendents from Edward IV nor Henry VII either as they lived only six hundred years ago. It is wishful thinking on the part of the person who stated that false information. There is a difference between being related and being directly descended. As much as people would like to pretend they are descended from the royalty of Europe, only about 700,000 people are that is 1% of the entire world population. RosePlantagenet 14:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, but 700,000 / 6 billion is about 0.01%, not 1%.


 * An elementary knowledge of history reveals that the Tudors and Stuarts have relatively few (legitimate) descendants, thats what all those wars were about.   There are many illegitimate descendants of Charles II.   The Duchess of Cornwall ( Camilla ),  the Duchess of York (Sarah Ferguson) and Diana, Princess of Wales were all descendants of Charles II.   There are plenty of descendants of George I and George II.Eregli bob (talk) 02:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Parliamentary deposition of the Hangoverians?
Check this out and tell me what you think: Talk:Ernest_Augustus_I_of_Hanover  68.110.8.21 00:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Final ruler
I think the discussion, who was the final ruler of the 'House of Hanover' comes from the problem, Ruler of which country?. After the incorporation of the Kingdom of Hanover into Prussia, George V was deposed and in exile. The Duke of Brunswick ruled in the Dukedom of Brunswick, but not in Hanover (!), from 1913 till 1918. During this time the Dukedom of Brunswick was a part of the Kingdom of Germany and not an independent state. Therefore I think, that 'ruler' meaning a head of state (or so), was George but not Ernst August.See perhaps also: http://www.welfen.de/ernst5.htm. Perhaps the distinction between the 2 states can be clarified better? Anne-theater 13:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Germanic Royal dynasty
could this be renamed into anglo-german or german-british? it sounds like out of a pre-historic time and besides no other then those two 'germanic' nations are involved? 74.225.89.248 (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It probably should be called German. For most purposes Hanover is mentioned in the context of Hanover in Germany. Its time in the UK is important from the UK POV but maybe not as much from the POV of the House of Hanover. And anyway, it has its home in Hanover, the place. 118.90.67.20 (talk) 11:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It ruled more people, and longer as Royals as Britons. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 07:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible error
The official site of the Welfs claims that the male line of the Welfs died with Welf III (d. 1055) but the line was continued by his sister Kunigunde (Cuniza) married to Azzo of Este, and that their son Welf IV continued the line. That contradicts the current statement:
 * The House of Hanover is a younger branch of the House of Welf, which in turn is the senior branch of the House of Este.

And Welf was then a so called nobility "created from scratch" (or by breeding non-noble ancestors so to say), rather than being a senior branch of Este. (And IMHO it is as dead as last years' herring). Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 19:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Forget it! There are two "Welf" dynasties: the Welf-Este, and the Elder House of Welf. That official site confuses the two dynasties. This article refer to the Hanoverians being Welf-Este:s. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 19:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Cadet branches
should they be listed? 98.206.155.53 (talk) 07:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

"Courtesy titles"
I changed the statement in the article "(the family) has held courtesy titles since 1919" to ("the family) has held no legal titles since 1919" and user Yopie changed it back without giving any reason. I can certainly find a source for the statement that there have been no legal titles for the House of Hanover since 1919, where are the sources for a statement that they have held "courtesy titles" since then? What's a "courtesy title" anyway, it has no legal or objective status, it is exactly the same as if I told everyone I met "I think it would be courteous if you would call me "Your Royal Highness Prince Peter of Pan" and some people were silly enough to do it. I don't believe in edit wars, so I have tagged the article for accuracy and neutrality.Smeat75 (talk) 04:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Courtesy titles is a bit strange. They held titles after 1919 though. Their German titles became part of their surnames, but the Weimar constitution still reffered to them as "titles". And since George V's ruling of 1917 only applied to male-line descendants of Queen Victoria, they were never deprived of their title "Prince of the UK of Great Britain and Ireland". Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Edward VII "takes" the name Saxe-Coburg-Gotha?
The article states the following - "...when Queen Victoria died, her son and heir Edward VII became the first British Monarch of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Edward taking his family name from that of his father, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha."

Edward VII never formally adopted any surname, be it 'Saxe-Coburg and Gotha' or otherwise. Contrary to popular belief, when Edward VII's son George V adopted the surname Windsor in 1917, no one really knew what the royal family's surname was.

This article sites a 2002 book called "War of the Windsors: A Century of Unconstitutional Monarchy" as the source for the information concerning Edward VII's surname. This book credits 4 authors and was published by the prestigious 'Mainstream Publishing' (?). This is obviously some tabloid book, hence its title, and hardly a worthy source for such a subject.

I am removing this statement from this article, and I shall source it soon.

--Mrlopez2681 (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * When sources are found supporting your contention, feel free to add. That doesn't automatically justify deleting info from a source with which you disagree. The oft-quote assertion about this is that George V asked and was told that the College of Heralds wasn't absolutely certain of the king's surname -- not that he had none. And that statement followed the expressed opinion that the king's probable surname was "Wettin or Wipper". FactStraight (talk) 02:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Having a source doesn't necessarily make that source accurate, much less the tabloid rubbish "War of the Windsors: A Century of Unconstitutional Monarchy" which is sited in this article. The article clearly states that Edward VII adopted a surname, which he never did, & although some of the more learned people of that time - such as the College of Heralds - were in disagreement as to what the surname was. Anyway, is it possible to add a source from a video clip? That is one source I know right away, at least until I dig out the one I know of from a book. --Mrlopez2681 (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, a video can be a reliable source. Actually, the source says nothing about "adopting" a "surname". What it says is "...Edward taking his family name from that of his father, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha", which is consistent with the "Wettin or Wipper" hypothesis, but also with the dynastic designation "of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha", to which house every historian and genealogist I've ever read assigns him. The point being that whether name or dynasty, it derived from his father and it is to that dynasty's nomenclature that he belongs, just as Henry VIII was a Tudor and James I of England was a Stuart because that is what their fathers were, and it remained unchanged until 1917. FactStraight (talk) 03:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm baffled! Wipper? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Edward VII "took" his family name from his father in the same way most people do. And the fact that the College of Heralds professed not to know this in 1917, really doesn't mean all that much in my eyes. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Huh? They didn't "profess not to know" whether George V derived his family name from his father -- they acknowledged that it did so -- also acknowledging that it happened so far back in history that what was unclear was which version of his patrilineal name is correct (rather than merely popular); Wettin or Wipper. Doubtless the College cares no more for your opinion in the matter than you do theirs, but Wikipedia, being an encyclopaedia, cares more about the College's views than about yours or mine as did, apparently, George V who turned to them for an answer. FactStraight (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, he was a patrilineal member of the house of Wettin, and held the title of a Prince of Saxe-Coburg & Gotha. Wettin comes from a comital title, that became the name of the house. Whether that constitutes a surname is an interesting question, but the Saxon dukes and their descendants used it to identify their dynasty. Surely the College knew that. They also (as I have heard) suggested Ghuelph (which was obviously wrong) and Wipper (don't know what that's about). Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I still don't get what you're on about here, since we seem to be saying the same thing with different emphases. It appears to me that the expert George V consulted at the College of Heralds was being meticulously careful in answer to the surname question, and was referring to some research with which I -- and apparently you -- are currently unfamiliar, that led him to explain to the King that his dynastic name was "probably Wettin" (a point which no one's disputing) but that it could also be "Wipper". It sounds (but please correct me if I'm just misunderstanding) as if you are saying that because no research suggesting that Wipper might be a historical alternative is known to you, that no such research could have existed or been plausible enough (in 1917) to be mentioned? If so, what do you imagine was the researcher's reason for stating it -- to mislead the King? For what purpose? FactStraight (talk) 08:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No it's not that, I seem to remember reading somewhere (I think in Nicholson's biography of George V) that more suggestions that Wettin or Wipper were on the table at the time. Including Ghuelph, Hanover and even Stuart, which made me frown when I read that. Perhaps that's the cause of my disparaging remarks. But now that I come to think about it, it could well be that those suggestions came from another source than the College. In which case I of course stand wholly corrected. I have the book somewhere and I'll look it up (and let you know). Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There are two rivers with the name of Wipper on the territory of the former Duchy of Saxony, namely Wipper (Saale) and Wipper (Unstrut), but I was unable to find out what any of them should have to do with the origins (and thus the name) of the House of Wettin.--Equord 01:56, 23. Jan 2018 (CEST)

House of Hanover pre-1714
This article had a short section on the pre-1714, with an uncited statement that George, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg (1635) is "considered" to be the first member of the House (presumably because he was the first to take up residence in Hanover). the article seemed to have too little on pre-1714, so, with that in mind, I expanded that section somewhat. However, I've just tried to find a source for George being the first or founder and have found nothing. In fact, to the extent that sources talk about it being "founded" it's in the context of British history with George I of Great Britain being called the founder. Should the "House of Hanover" be limited to the British branch and treated as the British cadet line of the Brunswick-Lüneburg's only? This is certainly how, e.g., Britannica treats it. (If you have a view please cite sources rather than just opinion) DeCausa (talk) 12:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The first person to use the name "Hanover" in his title for the part of the Welf lands he ruled, was Ernst-August in 1692. He was the Father of King George I and therefore the founder of the Hanoverian branch of the Welf dynasty. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have a better source for that? The website you refer to doesn't meet our WP:RS standard. DeCausa (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Younger branch?
In the article it says: "The House of Hanover is a younger branch of the House of Welf, which in turn is the senior branch of the House of Este". I'm not sure if that is true anymore since the Wolffenbüttel branch died out in the 1880's. Who would incidentally have also been the senior branch of the House of Este. The junior branch of the House of Este (Dukes of Modena) became extinct in the late 18th century I believe. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 12:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Why do the English Hannoverians end with Victoria?
Her son became king in 1901. Why isn't he a Hannoverian like his mother? 2604:3D09:757F:EC30:38CC:8467:5163:2FBD (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Because agnatic succession rules are traditionally applied for dynastic purposes. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't completely understand why she is still listed even after the comments above. She was never a ruler, despite being a descendant, due to the Salic law. Historyhiker (talk) 00:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, I just realized that she should be listed because it is talking about the house. I was confused because she is listed under the images that say "Monarchs of Great Britain, Ireland, and Hanover." This heading should be changed. I will change it if there are no objections. Historyhiker (talk) 00:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Bonifaci parent house is historically speculative
Ludovico Antonio Muratori argued that Bonifaci was the parent House of Obertenghi, but this has been refuted by other historians, such as Eduard Hlawitschka. This is noted on the Bonifaci page in Italian. Anseverio (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)