Yahoo Answers is shutting down on 4 May 2021 (Eastern Time) and the Yahoo Answers website is now in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

Louise C asked in Society & CultureRoyalty · 1 decade ago

Why do so many people on here describe our royal family as foreigners?

We are constantly told on this site that our present royal family are 'not really British' because they have German blood. I find this quite baffling. Royal families generally intermarry with other royal families, and always have done. You can scarcely find a British monarch in any period of history who has not married a foreigner, because that's what royalty does. How does having German blood make our royal family any less British than the British royalty of the past, who had Saxon, French, Spanish, Italian, and bloods of all nations?

I personally find this obsession with racial purity very weird. What is it all about?

Update:

Tough choice, all very interesting answers, thanks to everyone for your response.

12 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favourite answer

    In my opinion those that slate our Royal family for having foreign blood are blind to the fact that the majority of us have exactly the same timelines within our own ancestory. It is only because the "Family Tree" of our Royal family is such public knowledge that people imagine them to be foreigners. If all our geneology were known openly we would soon realise that we are all in the same boat. I have Norwegian, Russian and Latvian (and even Scottish) blood from only the last 4 generations of my family.

    Further I might suggest that it is those anti Royalists that make the most of these points in a bid to generate support for their cause, the abolishment of the Monarchy.

    Long may they fail!!

  • ?
    Lv 4
    5 years ago

    I completely consider you different than i do no longer love the Royals, I in simple terms like them, the idiots asserting the royals do no longer something of course don't be conscious of what they are speaking approximately, they do plenty for various charities and the adverse Queen had to hearken to Gary Barlow drone on some music, she merits a medal purely for that :-) there is likewise the Duke of Edinburgh awards and a few different issues, honest adequate taxpayers do pay slightly in direction of the Royal kinfolk, however the those anti-Royals are asserting no longer something against bankers who took and took and then the tax payers bailed them out, a minimum of the Royals nonetheless have their very own funds and don't mess with different peoples.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    No english person is 100% genetically english, we all know that.

    But if we stop getting technical for a minute - they were very recent 'pure' germans, as in they lived there.

    So in the amount of time they've been considered british its relatively small compared to alot of the old monarchy.

    Thats why they changed their name from glaxcoburt or something during/after the war because it was ''too german'' and us english were getting a bit grumbly and wanted our royalty to be 100% british cuz we mistrusted the german names during the war.

    but true - we're all foreigners!

  • 1 decade ago

    No, you are right, it does not make any sense !

    In that case Britain has not had a British Royal family since 1066.

    But Elizabeth II. is as much British as all others. It is almost impossible or even impossible to say that any British citizen had ONLY British roots.

    Lizzy was born in England, had British parents and has only lived in Britain and her first (and MAYBE only) language is English.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Those posters are anti-royalists.They think that painting the Royal Family as "foreigners" will turn people against them.These anti-royalists fail to see that their frequent postings of rants aren't winning any one over.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Well said, the Queen (not mention her father, his father and his father) were all born in this country. Whereas they may have married those of different nationalities how can we ascertain that we ourselvess are not of foreign descent? I know that all my great-grandparents except one were not born in this country, does that make me more British than Her Majesty or is it irrelevant in today's multi-cultural society.

  • Paco
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    People who don't know anything about genetics are easily confused by the idea of racial purity. It is well known that John Willem Friso is the common ancestor of every royal house in Europe including the ones that are currently abolished.

    ------------

    0-X- Elizabeth II -Queen of U.K. -1926

    1-P- George VI -King of U.K. -1895

    2-M-Mary-of Teck-1867

    3-P-Francis-Duke of Teck-1837

    4-P-Alexander-Duke of Württemberg-1804

    5-M-Henrietta-of Nassau-Weilburg-1780

    6-M-Carolina-of Orange-Nassau-1743

    7-P-William IV-Prince of Orange-1711

    8-P-John Willem Friso-Prince of Orange and Nassau-1687

    ------------

    However, if you go back somewhere in the neighborhood of 32 to 35 generations you would find a "common ancestor" to everyone alive today of European descent (including northern and latin America). You can estimate that through genetic research and mathematical modelling, but you don't know who it is. John Willem Friso was a minor nobleman with only 2 children who just happens to be the most recent common ancestor of all the royal families. The most recent common ancestors of all the Europeans is probably somebody of no special signfigance.

    ------------

    Calling the Windsors German barely made sense in 1917. It really doesn't make sense now. You know have descendents of George V married to Nigerians, Maori's, Czechs, Canadians, and Americans.

    ------------

    It is just name calling. BTW there are 33 generations between William the conqueror and Prince william.

    ----------------

    The most recent common ancestor of all of mankind may only go back 100 generations but probably no more than 300 generations. That's everyone! That includes Watusi's pgymies, australian aboriginies, Russians, chinese, Americans, Slavs, Inuit and the British.

    ----------------

    In 1958 ideas of miscegenation and marriage laws against "interracial marriage" were very much alive. It was years before signifigant changes were made in civil rights. A geneticist from Ohio wrote a paper where he estimated that 21% of the white population in the USA had some African blood in them and that 73% of the black population had European blood in them. He wanted to shock people about their complacent notions of "racial purity".

    ----------------

    EDIT: I saw a comment on here that said we came out of ten tribes million of years ago. That estimate is way off. Actually the point of Identical Common Ancestry was between 5,000 to 15000 years ago. At this point everyone alive on the planet falls into two categories. (1) Their line of descent dies out, or (2) they are the ancestor of EVERY single person alive in every corner of the earth in the year 2008. The human population between 15000 and 5000 years ago probably changed from roughly 1-4 million to 25 million people.

  • Duffer
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    It's ignorance. There is no pure English blood - we have been inter-breeding with most of Europe for centuries.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    if you look at the DNA we all come from about 10 tribe's that came out of Africa millions of years ago

  • 4 years ago

    because they think their sick u get me big up louise c hitting 50000 points soon af

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.