LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteSo George V was what relation exactly to Victoria?
Originally Posted by DragoonGuard
Nope, Edward VII died in 1910, most likely George V who was very similar in appearance to his first cousin Nicholas II
So George V was what relation exactly to Victoria?
I thought I was the American.........
I'd go out on a limb and say George V was her grandson.
The Welsh (Welch) Regiment was an infantry formation. The Carabiniers were the Prince of Wales Dragoon Guards---but I expect that you knew that.
As this thread was posited towards Geo. Washington, none of these regiments served in the American Revolutionary War, although the Royal Welch Fusiliers (22nd foot) did.
Just wanted to hear it from yourself.I thought I was the American.........
I'd go out on a limb and say George V was her grandson.
Why the Saltire?
Victoria died in 1901 and was succeeded by Bertie crowned as Edward VII, her son and second child. Edward died in 1910 and was succeeded by another Bertie, Edward's second son, crowned as George V.I thought I was the American.........
I'd go out on a limb and say George V was her grandson.
George V may have given the order/command to the Scots Grey's re. the cap badge due to guilt. For it was he that personally vetoed the daring rescue plan to free the Czar and his family and bring them to England.
So George V thought about the rescue but decided against it?
Oh well, its the thought that counts though, isn't it.
Last edited by DragoonGuard; 15 Jul 09, at 02:22.
Most Americans don't bother themselves with royal genealogy unless they can prove they're related.
And, you're asking a "hick" from Kansas about British royal genealogy...... I guess the irony exists only in my own mind....)
I find irony in the fact that Washington did not become a new line of royalty, but this thread hasMost Americans don't bother themselves with royal genealogy unless they can prove they're related.
And, you're asking a "hick" from Kansas about British royal genealogy...... I guess the irony exists only in my own mind....
By the way thanks for the replies, seems that I have the right basic idea on the man. I mentioned the book 1776. Anybody else read it, and if so what do you think about it? It certainly paints a very dire picture of that first year and how it was almost the last. It points to a few men who really kept the American Revolution going, firstly Washington but also Paine, Knox, Greene and others.
I have not read the book "1776", I don't care much for American history, although I've read a bit about its war up to 1918.I find irony in the fact that Washington did not become a new line of royalty, but this thread has
By the way thanks for the replies, seems that I have the right basic idea on the man. I mentioned the book 1776. Anybody else read it, and if so what do you think about it? It certainly paints a very dire picture of that first year and how it was almost the last. It points to a few men who really kept the American Revolution going, firstly Washington but also Paine, Knox, Greene and others.
I'm "elbow deep" in "The Empire of the Steppes" by Rene Grousset.
If you are a White Anglo-Saxon American you have a 50% chance of being descended from Royalty.Most Americans don't bother themselves with royal genealogy unless they can prove they're related.
And, you're asking a "hick" from Kansas about British royal genealogy...... I guess the irony exists only in my own mind....
Being American or any one of Anglo-Celtic stock and related to Royalty is not that rare or exclusive. Kings and princes were not noted for keeping their trousers on, Edward III had 14 legitimate children and just about every King (strangely even the homosexual ones) have left a string of Royal Bastards.
As Royal Bastards were more likely to survive and tended to be married off well, they have left their genes scattered throughout the world. Best estimates are that 45% of Englishmen are descended from Edward III and a full 28% from William the Conquerer.
This gets quite important regarding America as there was a strong social impetus to get such offspring out of the way and with inheritance laws the colonies were a big opportunity not just for royalty, but for the younger sons of the Gentry where many from the distaff side sheltered. At the time of the American Revolution the population of Britain was between 7 and 9 million and that of the 13 colonies just over 2 million--some 20% of Britons ( yes, I was surprised as well) so we can guess that the Colonies had a higher ratio of 'blue-blood' than the home country. Britons were also the bulk of further immigrants into America right up to the end on the 19th Century. Twenty American Presidents have been descended from British Royalty, even Obama.
More recent Monarchs like Charles II, James II and William IV have hundreds of illegitimate descendants hanging around today and plenty in Westminster, Washington, Canberra-- which proves what we all knew--we are ruled by a bunch of bastards!
Just making conversation........And a friendly inquiry as to why you have the Saltire in your profile box?Most Americans don't bother themselves with royal genealogy unless they can prove they're related.
And, you're asking a "hick" from Kansas about British royal genealogy...... I guess the irony exists only in my own mind....
Irt Washington, I think that some of his mistakes can be blamed on lack of experience, along with poor subordinates that were mentioned earlier. While he had some military eperience, he had little experience in handling large bodies of troops. As the war continued, his own performance noticeably improved, as did the quality of his subordinates.
Most presidents were not Episcopalian. Only 12 out of the 44 were Episcopalian.
How many are reported to have been masonic?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: