The WW 1 Bomber And The House of Winsor

[Dai Fledermaus]

As we remember the outbreak of the First World War, there is an interesting article in the Daily Wail today, linking the Royal Family to a WW 1 bomber.

Until early 1917 King George V who was German and his wife Queen Mary, who spoke her mother tongue English with a strong guttural accent, still had the surname Saxe-Coburg-Gotha although it was seldom used. Of George's 29 first cousins on his father's side 19 were German, the rest half German; while on his mother's side, of the 31 first cousins, six were German and 25 half German. None were British. Due to his blood ties, the King held honorary ranks as a German Field Marshal and was a colonel of some German regiments

George was conservative in the extreme and a fearsome autocrat even as the full impact of the death and destruction across the Channel, generated massive anti German sentiment in this country leading to rioting, assaults on suspected Germans and looting of stores with German names, he still refused to see the problem of his German connections. He declared `civilised values must not be sacrificed to the clamour of patriotism`

However on June 13th 1917 all this was to change, for the first time there was a daylight raid by 23 enemy fixed wing bombers on London which resulted in 162 deaths and 432 injuries. Among the dead were 16 children in a Poplar primary school. The Nation was stunned. Then it emerged that the name of these planes which had brought so much death and destruction, was the Gotha G IV very similar to the Kings surname. Three weeks later another Gotha raid claimed to lives of another 57 with 193 injured.

George suddenly realised he had to distance himself and his family from this horror by changing the family name. After many suggestions from courtiers which included Tudor and Stuart, harking back to earlier times, Lord Stamfordham, the King's private secretary came up with Windsor. As for all those embarrassing relatives, who hung around Buckingham Palace, well they were all given British peerages. Queen Mary's brothers the Duke of Tec and Prince Alexandra of Tec ( German nobles descended from the from the House of Wurttemburg ) became Marquess of Cambridge and the Earl of Athlone respectively.

So there you are, but for that German aircraft the Royal Family would still presumably carry the name Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. How would that sit with the anti European lobby I wonder?

[KingKade]

Blimey, interesting.....

[PatMc]

Posted by Colin Ashman on 19/07/2014 11:52:55:

So there you are, but for that German aircraft the Royal Family would still presumably carry the name Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.

Err, no.

The name would be either Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg or (but for Churchill's personal prejudice) Mountbatten.

 

Edited By PatMc on 19/07/2014 12:08:01

[Dai Fledermaus]

Posted by PatMc on 19/07/2014 12:07:10:

Posted by Colin Ashman on 19/07/2014 11:52:55:

So there you are, but for that German aircraft the Royal Family would still presumably carry the name Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.

Err, no.

The name would be either Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg or (but for Churchill's personal prejudice) Mountbatten.

 

Edited By PatMc on 19/07/2014 12:08:01

 

Sorry Patmac but I think you are going to have to explain that for me

 

Edited By Colin Ashman on 19/07/2014 12:31:11

[Tony K]

Mountbatten is the name later taken by Prinz Ludwig Alexander von Battenberg who became First Lord of the Admiralty in 1912. At the outbreak of hostilities, it was considered undesirable to have a German in charge of the Royal Navy so he was replaced by Winston Churchill.

He later changed the family name to Mountbatten, naming himself Louis, and was given the title of 1st. Marquess of Milford Haven.

It is his grandson Philip Mountbatten who we know as Prince Philip (of Greece).

[G-YRUS]

I am a republican so alive or dead they are all best forgotten and that's without prejudice to anyone on a personal level as I have never mixed in those circles and now that's looking even more unlikely

[Dai Fledermaus]

Like G-Yrus I'm a republican at heart, and no expert on the subject, but whatever the family name of Phillip of Greece and Denmark be it Mountbatten or Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg- Glucksburg ( according to Wikipedia that particular line of his family died out in 1779 anyway ) or whatever else name they chose, I hardy think as consort to the current Queen, the royal family would have changed their name to his.

[Erfolg]

If you look at the recent history, it is not very difficult to understand why potentially many of the royal family would be considered German.

To some extent it can be argued that WW1 was a consequence of Napoleon. On his jolly jaunt to Moscow, Napoleon pushed his way past the Prussians with not to much difficulty. Even prior to Napoleon, the French (court) had decided that the true and natural boundary of France was the river Rhine. What we know as Lorriane and Alscase were all part of the Bavarian territorial holdings as were parts of Italy, in addition the Mosselle region were other nominal Germanic holdings.

But history is not not that easy, when considering these places, as they were all seen as family holdings, where various homages and patronage were due. For instance to the Holy Roman Empire, which we tend to see as Austria, which again had relationships with Bavaria.

But the real question was was, and currently is Germany. Although there were Emperors who supposably controlled Germany, for much of the history Germany was a collection of countries with separate Kingdoms, owing sometimes nominal allegiance to a Emperor, sometimes under their thumb. In reality a lot of Royalty for the English nobility to marry.

The importance of the Prussians, is that after defeat by Napoleon, collectively Prussia decided this would never happen again. The state becoming very much more a military power.

Then along come the French decide they have a grievance with the Northern Federation, which Bismark had been instrumental in consolidating, and declared war on was is now considered pretty much Germany, although much bigger then, with some parts missing. This act consolidated the Prussian power, now having a Emperor again, which got up the nose of Queen Victoria, as the British empire was much bigger still and she was at that time a Queen. Her rather unpleasant teenage cousin, apparently would become Kaiser William 2, whom was not one of her favourites. There is much debate how much Bismark provoked France by supporting a Spanish dispute, the outcome, much to the French surprise, having picked on a weaker member of the Federation, was the involvement of Prussia and a crushing defeat. Which alarmed Britain, as there was another power to deal with, which may need dealing with in the future.

The point of all this what we call Germany and Austria has been many Kingdoms , with all their courts and hierarchy, allegiances, which covered pretty much all of Northern/Central and bits of what is now called Northern Italy. One of histories interesting, supposed facts, one German Emperor, lived in Sicily and never set foot in what we consider to be Germany. It was that confused.

When you then consider, there has not been any French Royalty for some times, you are left with the Sweden, Dutch and perhaps Russia at a pinch, yet they were all related, as part of the great struggle of gaining and keeping power, hence wealth and influence.

It all reminds me of the stock market and corporate take overs etc.

[Tony K]

Philip is the only son of Prince Andrew of Greece and Denmark, whose family name was Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg .

In order to marry Elizabeth (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha ?) Philip had to become a British citizen and give up all foreign titles. He took the name of his maternal Grandfather, Mountbatten.

His four sisters all married into German aristocracy.

Incidently, it is not generally known that George V and Kaiser Wilhelm were cousins.

[Prop Nut]

Most of us who did 'O' Level history know that King George V, Kaiser Wilhelm II and Tsar Nicholas II were all first cousins, being grand-sons of Queen Victoria.

[PatMc]

Posted by Colin Ashman on 19/07/2014 13:50:22:

I hardy think as consort to the current Queen, the royal family would have changed their name to his.

But that's exactly the reason that George V was lumbered with Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. If Queen Victoria hadn't taken her consort's name he would have been had, the less obviously German, family name Hanover.

BTW I'm a republican too, sooner we get rid of the royal parasites the better as far as I'm concerned.

[PatMc]

Posted by Prop Nut on 19/07/2014 14:45:43:

Most of us who did 'O' Level history know that King George V, Kaiser Wilhelm II and Tsar Nicholas II were all first cousins, being grand-sons of Queen Victoria.

I would have thought most people who know anything about early 20th century Europe are aware of that, whether they did 'O' level history or not.

[malcolm woodcock 1]

A very interesting thread, I've learnt a lot about linneage. As for becoming a Republic I think it's about time we grew up and selected our own head of state instead of relying on one families deluded belief that you can be born into this role. Yes I served my country for 9 years in the RAF before anybody asks.

[Erfolg]

Deluded belief in their right to the role! What role?

I personally shudder at the thought of President Blair, one par with Emperor Bush.

Best have some on harmless, Rather than say a President Yeltsin, who would sell the UK to the highest bidder for a bottle and a sing song.

Edited By Erfolg on 19/07/2014 15:56:05

[Colin Leighfield]

Referring to an earlier comment about the French Royal family, the Bonapartes did have another bash at it until it all went all haywire with Napoleon III and he was forced to abdicate and live in exile in England. His son, often referred to jokingly as Napoleon 3 1/ 2, joined the British Army and served in the Zulu Wars. He got isolated with other officers on patrol and had an unpleasant encounter with a bunch of Zulu warriors, who despatched him in usual fashion and then dis-embowelled him to ensure that his spirit didn't come back to haunt them. Afterwards when they were told that he was royalty they were quite upset and said that if someone had told them who he was, they wouldn't have done it. Ah well, he had harboured ambitions to be Emperor of France again, but that was the end of it. One of Victoria's daughters was sweet on him, if they had married there would have been a connection with French royalty as well as German. That could have been interesting, particularly if he had made it back to Versailles!

[Mowerman]

None of the royals descended from heaven in filaming chariots in order to rule us peasants but were in fact descended from gangsters and bullies (the Krays and Richardsons of the time) way back in the dark ages.

[Erfolg]

Oh Mowerman, these people were chosen by God, he may have been called Thor

Colin, there would have been a irony with respect the French, as France is possibly the one country that the English crown has spent more time at war with than any other. In the past refusing to pay homage to the French King. Plotting with who ever to reduce the opportunities for France to increase their European dominance.

[Colin Leighfield]

Anything to do with the French is usually ironic! This whole descendancy thing is utter tripe anyway and it's all based on the nonsense about continuation of the male line. It isn't just royalty, it's us as well. If we accept the truth, that genes from male and female sides are equally relevant, on the basis of four generations per century, every one of us is made up from 256 different people as recently as two hundred years ago. Three hundred years ago it's 4,056 and so on. Even if following the male line tells you that your umpteenth great grand-father was George IV or whoever two hundred years ago, the truth is that he is only 1/256 of you.

This is why they reckon that if you go back 1,000 years or so, we're all related to some royal family or other and it's most likely true. I would say though that judging by the quality of the clowns who ask us to vote to them over the last 70 years or so, to have someone like the current Queen around is quite a relief, even though she is perhaps a bit of a fluke. I'd rather have her than Putin as a figurehead.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

I don't think i'll do the monarchy v republic bit but are you telling me Britain just won the World cup

John...cmon the lads

[Colin Leighfield]

Come on John, tell us. Do you know something we don't?

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

If our monarchys German and we are all related seems only fair that we won the World Cup as well

John

And for what it's worth, my view is whether elected or self appointed, they are all a waste of space, long live King Geoffrey (Boycott)

And another thing...why is there no White rose in the smileys

[PatMc]

Posted by Colin Leighfield on 19/07/2014 17:45:28:

Anything to do with the French is usually ironic! This whole descendancy thing is utter tripe anyway and it's all based on the nonsense about continuation of the male line. It isn't just royalty, it's us as well. If we accept the truth, that genes from male and female sides are equally relevant, on the basis of four generations per century, every one of us is made up from 256 different people as recently as two hundred years ago. Three hundred years ago it's 4,056 and so on. Even if following the male line tells you that your umpteenth great grand-father was George IV or whoever two hundred years ago, the truth is that he is only 1/256 of you.

This is why they reckon that if you go back 1,000 years or so, we're all related to some royal family or other and it's most likely true. I would say though that judging by the quality of the clowns who ask us to vote to them over the last 70 years or so, to have someone like the current Queen around is quite a relief, even though she is perhaps a bit of a fluke. I'd rather have her than Putin as a figurehead.

If you consider the near incestous marriages within the European royal families over the last 1,000 years or so their genes must have a very limited spectrum. (Possibly even more concentrated than the average family in Norfolk)

[Colin Leighfield]

Funny you should mention that Pat! This practice of marrying inwards goes back a long way and made the assumption that by keeping the riff-raff out of the family they were "maintaining the purity of the blood-line", without realising that by doing so they were condemning themselves to progressive development of birth-defects and inherited disease. Apparently they reckon that this was apparent in the Egyptian Pharoahs, evidence of it was found in the bodies of Tutankahmen and babies with him in his tomb.

Recently while reading Ray Blyth's fascinating book "Only the Maker's Name" I noted his description of the death of Prince William of Gloucester in 1972 while he was flying in the Goodyear Air Race from Halfpenny Green in 1972, when Ray was Managing Director of flying training services there. I remember it happening. It seems as though William was a decent bloke, a real flying enthusiast who tried hard to escape the trappings of his royal background. I was interested so I found out more about him. I discovered that he suffered from porphyria, the disease associated with (sometimes mad) King George III. If it is diagnosed, it can be managed these days with medication and you can lead a normal life. However, because of the concerns about inherited diseases, even today all members of the royal family are screened for it, as a precaution.

While I have problems with all of this, I still recognise that nobody decides who their parents are and I don't like slagging off individuals because of who they are for whatever reason of family or race or anything else, I judge them by what they do with their lives. For that reason I've got more respect for Princes William or Harry than I have for the government minister and his opposition shadow I've had the doubtful pleasure of meeting this week. A pair of self-congratulating and misguided clowns who were elected democratically (which says something about the limited choices available to us and why so many don't bother to vote any more). I've got no doubt whatsoever that when one of these two steps down as a minister he'll follow his jailbird predecessor into a highly paid job in the renewable energy industry, which is the portfolio he's been responsible for. Pathetic! At least William and Harry have got an air of humanity and decency about them, wherever they came from.

Perhaps we should follow Malaysia. They enthusiastically support their monarchy and have recently built a fabulous new palace. The King and his royal family are highly respected. The difference is that he rules for five years only, because he is elected and stands down afterwards. There is no "royal blood-line". ( Does saying that get me into the Tower of London)?

Whoever we are, we all do the very best that we can to give our kids the best start in life that we can and if you do well, your own kids will get a better start in life than others who's mom and dad didn't get so far. it's a natural thing, but doesn't guarantee continuing success. However, there's no denying that it helps them. I suppose we could avoid it by following the Nazi idea of putting babies into farms and treating them all the same. What a disgusting idea. Heaven help us, it just tells you that there's no perfect solution, the only common thing is that we're all human.

 

Edited By Colin Leighfield on 20/07/2014 07:27:54

[Paul Jefferies]

Hmmm..... An interesting thread.

I have long felt that the Royals have outlived their usefulness and we should replace Her Britannic Majesty as head of state. This is not because of anything she or any of her ancestors have done but simply because the principle of somebody being head of state by accident of birth is simply wrong.

But there does have to be a head of state so who would we put in their place? There are many examples of how NOT to choose a President, the USA being top of my list. The problem with most of the systems in which the head of state is elected by the people is that we (the people) do not really KNOW the prospective President, we only see what the campaign managers want us to see. So my feeling is that he or she should be chosen or elected by his peers....... I am definitely not a supporter of the Catholic Church but I think the system of electing a new Pope is not far off the mark.

I would have an "Upper House" consisting of worthies who have done well for the country in their chosen sphere..... Lawyers, Doctors, Industrialists, Military Officers, Bishops and even the odd Politician(!) and I think they should choose the Head of State from amongst their number having got to know him or her in the bar and having seen him (or her!) perform at close quarters.

So..... Thank You your Majesty, you have dedicated your life to your country and have done a fantastic job but times move on and we don't need you any more...... Enjoy your retirement!

[Colin Leighfield]

I'm with Paul a lot of the way on this. I think a starting point could be to recognise that if someone has an ambition to be a politician, it probably means that they're unsuitable for it, look at the ones we've got! Secondly and beng realistic, I would say that noone is allowed any career in politics before the age of 40. They must have demonstrated a real world life of working for a living before they are even considered to be potentially suitable. I think just doing that would make a big difference because I'm sick of being told what I should do by kids from familiies who paid for their education, who then got a degree in politics and immediately after worked for a party in the UK or in Brussels, then get landed in a safe parliamentary seat. (Shadow Housing Minister who I wouldn't pay to sweep the floor is a good example of many of these dismal useless MPs).

Perhaps if we combined this with a Malaysian style elected 5 year monarchy for ceremonial and "feel good" reasons, we could have the best of both worlds.