Talk:House of Hanover

message: If Victoria was ineligible to be monarch of Hanover, then why is she shown here?  Shouldn't she be replaced with her uncle, Ernest Augustus if he became king after the death of his brother?  98.221.141.21 (talk) 00:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Queen Victoria

message: Victoria of the United Kingdom has the surname "d'Este" linking to this page (and a note on the talk page sort-of explains why), but this page doesn't mention that name. Perhaps someone who knows the connection could add something somewhere? - IMSoP 19:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  d'Este? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Split with Britain 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Descendents of Edward IV and Henry VII 

message: the templates on this page are badly broken! can anyone fix this? --168.122.219.132 01:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: all set--Alhutch 01:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  template troubles 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Final ruler

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  ''Germanic'' Royal dynasty 

message: 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. (mbork3!) 19:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. (mbork3!) 19:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible error

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Courtesy titles" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. http://www.welfen.de/stammtafel.html Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  House of Hanover pre-1714 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Younger branch? 

message: https://report.iwf.org.uk/en/
www.dogpile.com
2A02:C7D:DE7B:6100:B819:F8DB:4B20:EF9F (talk) 07:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnNEgay6O-U 

message: 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)
replies: text: Because agnatic succession rules are traditionally applied for dynastic purposes. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why do the English Hannoverians end with Victoria? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bonifaci parent house is historically speculative