Before this current royal family what family ruled England, when and what caused the switch?

lanfranco

It's the same family, but the House of Windsor was the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha from the accession of Edward VII until 1917, when anti-German feeling produced by World War I caused George V to change the name to the solidly English "Windsor." In response, Kaiser Wilhelm famously remarked that he was looking forward to the next performance of "The Merry Wives of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha." Incidentally, I believe that the actual family name of Albert, the Prince Consort, who had been the Prince of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, was "Wettin," and that this was therefore the surname of Edward VII and George V. Queen Victoria had officially remained a member of the House of Hanover, the surname of which was "Welf." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Windsor Oct 19 05, 1:02 PM

bloomsby

If you're looking for the previous dynasty, you need to go back to the House of Stuart, which ruled from 1603-1649 and again from 1660-1714. From 1649-1660 England was a republic, and during the English Civil War in the 1640s, King Charles I wasn't in control of more than about half the country at any time. The Stuarts had, on the whole, a bumpy ride. Oct 19 05, 1:56 PM

lanfranco

Technically speaking, we're still talking about the same family. George I, the first Hanoverian king, was a direct descendant of James I Stuart and a cousin of Queen Anne. In fact, supposedly, Elizabeth II's lineage can be traced all the way back to Cerdic, the 1st king of the West Saxons, with several twists and jogs in the branches. At least, so claims this interesting little Debrett's royal family tree I've got sitting in front of me. But you're right, bloomsby. I don't know whether mbl means family or dynasty. Oct 19 05, 3:25 PM

bloomsby

Actually, I'm not impressed by Debrett's claim. As you say, Lanfranco, there are many strange twists in the branches. I imagine many of us could make some strange claims if we were allowed to 'ab lib' in our family trees. :) Oct 19 05, 4:25 PM

my_baby_love

I'm sorry but I am now quite confused, what is the difference between family and dynasty? Oct 19 05, 4:29 PM

lanfranco

Excellent question, mbl. I suppose you might describe it as the difference between direct descent within a family and collateral descent from one family with a certain surname to another, possibly related but if so distantly, and with another surname or "House" designation. The difference is a little murky, but one could say that although Elizabeth I Tudor was related to James I Stuart, the Tudor dynasty ended on her death and the Stuart dynasty began. But, forgive me, bloomsby, you would have to say the same regarding the death of Queen Anne, the last Stuart, and the accession of her distant cousin, George I, the first Hanoverian. I'm open to any arguments against that interpretation. Oct 19 05, 4:43 PM