From: sandee@ds9.scri.fsu.edu (Daan Sandee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: KINGS: how do they number UK kings
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:06:30 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1992Apr2.212517.7850@ssd.kodak.com>, dj@ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones) writes:
> In article <jon.702248005@lindy.Stanford.EDU> jon@lindy.Stanford.EDU (Jon Corelis) writes:
> >   I have a large chart which I bought at the British Museum shop
> >showing all the kings and queens of England -- a fascinating resource
> >   Incidentally, if I read the chart right, a direct line of descent can
> >be traced from Ecgbert to the present monarch.  Is this something
> >generally known to Britons, or would people find this statement
> >surprising? 

> Not surprised that the statement is made - to say otherwise would be
> to question the monarch's legitimacy - but extremely surprised if it
> turned out to be true.  Even if we neglect the various cousins etc.
> brought in at various times (James I, George I to name but two) there
> are the times of turmoil and clouded claims to consider.  William the
> Conqueror was known as "the Bastard" n'est-ce pas?  And then there are
> the various Henry's and their corresponding Richard's.....
> 
> Is this the chart that traces back to God? (last seen in the hands of
> Alf Garnett.....)

I'm sure that when Jon posted this he was expecting some unbeliever to
jump into this with both feet. This is not romantic fiction, you know. 
Most of this is recorded history.
[As a side note : a "direct line of descent", which sounds to some people
to claim more than any other line of descent, is a tautology. Either A is
descended from B, or A is not descended from B. Any line of descent is
direct. The only qualification could be "direct *male* line". ]

The historical accuracy of dynasties before the Conquest is, of course,
not entirely clear. But there is no reason, really, not to accept contemporary
tradition, if it isn't exactly independently recorded history. There is a
chance that Alfred told his pet clerk to make it darn clear that he was the
legal descendent from Egbert, whether or not the clerk had independent
information on that ; but in the absence of contrary evidence we'd better
accept the tradition.
(Note all of this below is from memory. I don't have Jon's chart. I may be
wrong occasionally.)
Egbert (c. 820 AD) was the first to use the title of King of England though
it merely meant he claimed supremacy over all the other kings and kinglets.
He did not have effective control. His grandson Alfred was the first to 
reign England, more or less within its present borders, except for the NE
part which the Danes controlled.
Alfred left a bunch of sons and lots of trouble. The Danes moved in (Canute
and others) and ran England for a bit. The next Anglo-Saxon King was also
the last, Edward the Confessor, son of Ethelred the Unready, who didn't
really make it to the position of ruler of England.
The short kingship of Harold Godwinson and the Norman Conquest don't enter
into the descent of the current Royal House. But we're nearly there.
Unfortunately I'm missing a detail here. William's youngest son, Henry,
married a descendant of Ethelred (granddaughter ? I can't remember.) After
that, it becomes easier.
 [ Each line represents a generation.]
Henry I m. some descendant of Ethelred.
Mathilda/Maud m. Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Anjou.
HENRY II (three sons, Richard, Geoffrey, John)
JOHN
HENRY III
EDWARD I
EDWARD II
EDWARD III who had lots of sons which caused lots of trouble.
Edmund, Duke of York (younger son)
Richard, Earl of Cambridge (younger son)
Richard, Duke of York
EDWARD IV, king by force of arms and politics
Elizabeth, m. HENRY VII Tudor, king by force of arms
Margaret (sister to Henry VIII) m. James IV Stuart
James V of Scotland
Mary Queen of Scots
James VI of Scotland, later JAMES I of England, by arrangement
Elizabeth (sister of Charles I) m. a Count Palatine
Rupert, Count Palatine, admiral in the British Navy.
A daughter, m. the Elector of Hanover                << not sure about this
Georg King of Hanover, later GEORGE I of G.B., by arrangement
GEORGE II
GEORGE III who had lots of sons
Duke of Kent, 4th son
VICTORIA, m. Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha
EDWARD VII, eldest son
GEORGE V, oldest surviving son
GEORGE VI, younger son, after abdication of Edward VIII
ELIZABETH II, who is the great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-
great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-
great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-
granddaughter of Egbert. Well, approximately.
Yes, there have been five changes of dynasty since the Conquest : Plantagenet,
Tudor, Stuart, Hanover, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. But in each case, the succeeding
dynasty could claim descent from the previous one through the female line.

Okay, all you nitpickers : don't hesitate to tell me where I went wrong ...

Daan Sandee                                           sandee@sun16.scri.fsu.edu
Thinking Machines Corporation
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute, B-186
Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-4052  (904) 644-4490