shirley
Member of the Court
Posts: 1 
|
Post by shirley on Jan 13, 2010 17:28:42 GMT
I know the story about -for instance about the Plantagent's - but did these people have actual last names? I am trying to get my family tree in order, but it is hard to link families together in my list, and then find them, when there are only first names, or names with just where they were from or linked to. Does any one have any suggestions as to how to organize them or where I can find actual last names? Or should they be just organized by eg. Tudor's, Stuart's, etc. ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ibelieveinfairytales on Jan 13, 2010 21:01:57 GMT
|
|
hovite
Member of the Court
Posts: 40
|
Post by hovite on Jan 13, 2010 22:36:03 GMT
That page claims "Before 1917, members of the British Royal Family had no surname" which just isn't true. Richard, Duke of York, adopted the surname Plantagenet around 1448. King Henry VII of England was the son of Edmund Tudor, Earl of Richmond. King James I of England was the son of Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley. The descendants of King George I did not bother with surnames, except for the children of the Duke of Sussex, who took the surname d'Este, from their remote ancestor, Azo, Marquis of Este. The surname of Prince Albert was probably Wettin (see The Complete Peerage, 2nd edition, volume 8, page 758). But there is a complication because in Germany titles are surnames (whereas in Britain surnames and title are different). So, for example, the legal surname used by members of the former imperial family is not Hohenzollern, but Prinz von Preussen (Prince of Prussia). |
|
|
|
Post by Ibelieveinfairytales on Jan 13, 2010 22:50:26 GMT
That page claims "Before 1917, members of the British Royal Family had no surname" which just isn't true. Richard, Duke of York, adopted the surname Plantagenet around 1448. King Henry VII of England was the son of Edmund Tudor, Earl of Richmond. King James I of England was the son of Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley. The descendants of King George I did not bother with surnames, except for the children of the Duke of Sussex, who took the surname d'Este, from their remote ancestor, Azo, Marquis of Este. The surname of Prince Albert was probably Wettin (see The Complete Peerage, 2nd edition, volume 8, page 758). But there is a complication because in Germany titles are surnames (whereas in Britain surnames and title are different). So, for example, the legal surname used by members of the former imperial family is not Hohenzollern, but Prinz von Preussen (Prince of Prussia). Interesting. Did they use surnames the way we define them today? (i.e. Richard Plantagenet or Albert Wettin) Weren't they used more as 'House' or 'Dynasty' names instead? Was there really any need for a surname? |
|
|
|
Post by observer on Jan 15, 2010 0:16:26 GMT
[....... That page claims "Before 1917, members of the British Royal Family had no surname" which just isn't true. Richard, Duke of York, adopted the surname Plantagenet around 1448. King Henry VII of England was the son of Edmund Tudor, Earl of Richmond. King James I of England was the son of Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley. The descendants of King George I did not bother with surnames, except for the children of the Duke of Sussex, who took the surname d'Este, from their remote ancestor, Azo, Marquis of Este. The surname of Prince Albert was probably Wettin (see The Complete Peerage, 2nd edition, volume 8, page 758). But there is a complication because in Germany titles are surnames (whereas in Britain surnames and title are different). So, for example, the legal surname used by members of the former imperial family is not Hohenzollern, but Prinz von Preussen (Prince of Prussia). I believe that Richard Plantagenet was the first to use this former nickname as a surname, but whether it would count as a consistenly-used family surname is difficult to judge - his son Edward IV, for example, was known before his accession as Edward of York and not, apparently, as Edward Plantagenet. The Tudors and the Stewarts/Stuarts had surnames before they ascended the throne, of course, Stewart arising from their position as Stewards to the Scots kings, and Tudor from the personal name of one of their ancestors - Tudor Fychan. The Brunswick-Hanovers emerged as a reigning family before the widespread adoption of family names, and the Saxe-Coburgs were an agnatic branch of the Wettings. I don't think the post-WWI position of German titles as family names would affect the current British Royal Family for two reasons. First, George V adopted 'Windsor' as the family name, abandoning Saxe-Coburg-Gotha/Wettin in 1917, which the present Queen has stated will continue as the family name. As the Queen's mother was not of equal birth under Saxe-Coburg-Wettin dynastic rules, I believe she would have no right to pass on that surname. Second, Charles is, in the male line, a member of the House of Oldenburg rather than of Wettin. |
|
|
|
Post by Aidan Work on Jan 24, 2010 19:15:51 GMT
Some countries do not actually have surnames for members of their royal families,which is why they use 'of Belgium','of Liechtenstein',or 'of Japan' instead.
Aidan.
|
|
|
|
Post by observer on Jan 25, 2010 4:22:41 GMT
Some countries do not actually have surnames for members of their royal families,which is why they use 'of Belgium','of Liechtenstein',or 'of Japan' instead. Aidan. In the case of the Liechtenstein princely family, it is more accurate to say that the country is named after the family, as their name of 'Liechtenstein' is derived from Liechtenstein Castle south of Vienna. The Belgian Royal Family belong to the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha/Wettin family but, like the Windsors, they gave up using the name at the time of World War I. There appears to have been no royal decree renouncing the old name and adopting a new one, however. The name used by non-ruling members of the Belgian royal family is 'of Belgium' in French, Dutch and German; the king's family name, however, is 'of the Belgians' in the appropriate languages. Bulgarian royals, another Saxe-Coburg line, still use that name, as the Portuguese use Braganza-SCG or Braganza-Wettin. With regard to Japan, surnames or family names were not commonly used except by the aristocracy until the 19th century, and the Imperial Family vastly predates the introduction of family names anyway. Members of the family, like British royals, are known by a title, e.g., Prince Hisahito of Akishino, where 'Akishino' is a title (Akishino-no-miya Fumihito shinno), like Beatrice of York or James of Wessex. |
|
|
|
Post by Aidan Work on Mar 24, 2010 1:43:17 GMT
Kabaka Ronald Mutebi II of Buganda also has no surname either,so 'of Buganda' can also be like a surname as well.
Aidan.
|
|
|
|
Post by observer on Mar 24, 2010 2:44:53 GMT
Kabaka Ronald Mutebi II of Buganda also has no surname either,so 'of Buganda' can also be like a surname as well. Aidan. He belongs to the Abalasangeye dynasty. Most royal families outside Europe (and, of course, Brazil and Mexico) do not have family or surnames in the Western sense, I believe. |
|
