Why are people happy to be ruled by Kings and Queens from FOREIGN countries?

Line of sccession of the British Throne: (... meaning year of death)

George, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg (House of Hanover, Germany) … 1641
married Anne Eleonore of Hesse-Darmstadt (Germany) … 1659

Their son Ernest Augustus, Elector of Brunswick-Lüneburg (Germany) … 1698
married Sophia of the Palatinate (Hanover, Germany) … 1714

Their son George I (born in Hanover, Germany), who became King of Great Britain, Ireland, and Brunswick-Luneburg after the death of Queen Anne in 1714, … 1727
married Sophia Dorothea of Celle (Germany)

Their son George II King of Great Britain (born in Germany) … 1760
married Caroline of Ansbach (Germany)

Their son Frederick, Prince of Wales (estranged son, luckily passed before his ascending the throne) … 1751

The second son of George II and Caroline, George III, King of Great Britain, Ireland, Brunswick-Luneburg (succeeding George II) … 1820
married Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz (Germany)

Their son George IV, King of Great Britain, Ireland, Hanover … 1830
married Caroline of Brunswick (Germany)

Their son William IV, King of Great Britain, Ireland, Hanover … 1837
married Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen (who had no children)

The son of George III: Edward, Duke of Kent & Strathearn … 1820
married Victoria, Princess of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld (Germany)

Their daughter Victoria, Queen of Great Britain, Ireland, India (succeeding William IV, reigned for 63 years) … (died) 1901
married her first cousin, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (Germany)

For two centuries all the Kings and Queens of Great Britain have been 100% German blood, all the way down to Victoria and her children. To this day, the British Royal family is of the German House. It was renamed “House of Windsor” to make it sound more British – but that does not make it more British.

So why do the British people revere their foreign Royalty? My answer is they are brainwashed.

The 100% German Queen Victoria and the 100% German Prince Albert had 9 children, 42 grandchildren including:

1) Albert-Edward = Edward VII, King of Great Britain and India … 1910
who married Alexandra*, Princess of Denmark.
(House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg)
Their son George V, became King of Great Britain … 1936
Their daughter Maud, became Queen Consort of Norway

2) Victoria who married Frederick III, German Emperor and King of Prussia
Their son Wilhelm II, became German Emperor and King of Prussia
Their daughter Sophia, became Queen Consort of Greece

3) Alfred Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha & Edingburgh
who married Maria-Alexandrovna*, Grand Duchess of Russia
(daughter of Alexander II, and sister of Alexander III)
Their daughter Marie, became Queen Consort of Romania

4) Alice who married Louis IV, Grand Duke of Hesse, Germany
Their daughter Alexandra-Feodorovna, (“Alix of Hesse” why russian
name?) became Consort of Nicholas II, Emperor of Russia
Their son Ernest Louis, became Grand Duke of Hesse, Germany

5) Beatrice who married Prince Henry of Battenberg, Germany
Their daughter Victoria Eugenie, became Queen Consort of Spain
(King Juan Carlos of Spain is Victoria’s great-grandson)

To this day, Spain, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium and of course the UK are still monarchies, mostly with Kings and Queens from other countries, cultures and languages.

Why? What do the Royals contribute for the benefit of the people? What gives them the right to rule over their people?

My answer is, the people are brainwashed. What is yours?

Regardless of what you might think, people need leaders.

a reply to: ThinkingHuman

Why? What do the Royals contribute for the benefit of the people? What gives them the right to rule over their people?


So, is your issue with Germans or Monarchies?


If both, you should have started two different threads. And anyways, if zzz Germans is the issue, show respect as they have apparently manipulated an entire nation for some time. If the idea of Royals bothers you, you could always try an uprising, as it worked for the yanks.

a reply to: ThinkingHuman

No political system is inherently evil. Not monachies. Not dictatorships. Not communists. It all depends on who you put in charge. But a benevolent king author type on the throne and it'll beat out any democracy on the planet.


The problem with those systems is when you get a monster on the throne it's REALLY hard to get him off and a disaster for the people. With a democracy you vote him out and try again.


All the communists are evil mumbo jumbo is just garbage they spoon feed the sheeple to get them to unite under what ever agenda they are pushing. It's just a " common enemy" stratagy.

Very nteresting but since when do "commoners" have a say? In Canada here we're not overly happy about being enslaved to the German queen but what's the average dude to do about it?

Fascinating research you did by the way.

a reply to: ThinkingHuman

You've asked three questions about why people feel the way they do. Obviously they can't be answered completely, but let me offer some suggestions.

Royalty is revered because they serve as royalty. They sacrifice themselves for their country and people, Queen Elizabeth is an excellent example. During WW II ammunition was made in the basement of the palace, making it a target. They largely stay above politics and the population knows (or believes) that their interest is the country as a whole.

What do they contribute? A sense of continuity, national pride, a rallying point above daily partisan bickering. Obama claimed he would unite the country. Royalty actually does.

What gave them the right? The people did. Where are the mass marches of millions of Britons demanding an end to royalty? Oh, there are some people who dislike any sign of the old, the traditional, the idea that some are better than others. But they seem to be mostly unhappy grumps. And they never point out what huge good would come from eliminating royalty. Save a few pounds? The way the Brits spend money? It is to laugh.

a reply to: Thorneblood

Regardless of what you might think, people need leaders.


Regardless of what to might NOT think, there will always be those that can't find the fortitude to walk their own path.

I don't think the op has issue with them being German. It's just that it's weird that monarchies, which are supposed to represent the country and culture they rule, can be from somewhere else to that extent. reply to: BestinShow

a reply to: BestinShow

And there will always be people who should be followers who insist on leading to the detrement of them and those who follow them.


My little brother is a prime example. I'm only 2 years older and lucked up into a crazy tight group of friends twards the end of high school. Friends who would lose a fight just to say they stood behind you. Well with him being my brother he had an instant in with my friends. However he just knew he was born to lead and would pull togather the worst pieces of garbage because they would follow him. Which was repeatedly a disaster that me and my friends had to go save them from.

a reply to: BestinShow
Individually yes, but as a group we need leadership or we falter and fail. If you can think of a better way to get a large group of unwashed, illiterate peasants to unite under a single authorative voice I would like to hear it.

originally posted by: ArtemisE
No political system is inherently evil. Not monachies. Not dictatorships. Not communists. It all depends on who you put in charge. But a benevolent king author type on the throne and it'll beat out any democracy on the planet. The problem with those systems is when you get a monster on the throne

You are right about the monster. But I disagree about political systems not being inherently evil. I find every system that does not give the people the rights they deserve, such as Human Rights, evil.

I would like to encourage you to be more careful with the use of pronouns. You said "it all depends on who you put in charge" - but the people do not put the King in charge, they are not given that right.

To rephrase, it all depends on the rule of succession, which was made without any input from the people, and, nobody has control over the coincidences of whether a child-monster or a child-angel is next in line.

a reply to: ThinkingHuman

I am not happy about it. I thought, when I was younger that in Canada we had divorced those bitches in 1967. That however is definitely not the case, otherwise I wouldn't have to look at horse-faced inbred welfare families every time I walked into a post office or court. The monarchy is obsolete and comprised of a bunch of useless-eaters living off the backs of anyone who works. Of course I could say the same thing about the parasite, politician and bankster class.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: charles1952
Royalty is revered because they serve as royalty.

That’s like saying a stone serves by being a stone.

They sacrifice themselves for their country and people,

I feel the opposite way, the Royalty start the war because they want more power – the people do not want to invade some country far away. The people do not benefit from territory acquired. The people, be they soldiers or innocent civilians are KILLED – while the Royalty usually survives with their ego bruised.

What do they contribute? A sense of continuity,

It is fake continuity if they don’t actually hold power to ensure that continuity. If they DO hold that power then who says they are not the monster-kind?

national pride,

again a fake national pride, because they’re all from Germany or some other country, whatever the case may be.

a rallying point above daily partisan bickering.

They don’t care if the left wing or the right wing wins – as long as they remain in power. That makes them above daily politics but the appearance of being above politics is also fake.

What gave them the right? The people did.

By definition, the people have no right to vote.

Where are the mass marches of millions of Britons demanding an end to royalty?

Because they don’t want to be killed or injured or imprisoned by police.

You reaffirmed my conclusion that the people are brainwashed into believing something fake.

a reply to: ThinkingHuman

There are plenty of examples of people crowning kings that weren't born to be kings. Also like I was saying if you put a dictator in charge who is all about human rights your golden.

a reply to: charles1952

What do they contribute? A sense of continuity, national pride, a rallying point above daily partisan bickering.

Perfectly stated ... glad to see a contribution of this caliber, as you've been missed.

originally posted by: ArtemisE
There are plenty of examples of people crowning kings that weren't born to be kings. Also like I was saying if you put a dictator in charge who is all about human rights your golden.

Can you please name me three?

A dictator dictates, by definition he does not invite opposing views to be considered. He may find himself pressured to do so. But enlighten me how a dictator voluntarily giving people human rights is not an oxymoron.

originally posted by: BestinShow
So, is your issue with Germans or Monarchies?

Neither, my issue is with the people - for letting themselves be brainwashed. For not thinking. For being gullible.

Jonathan Swift seems to have known the future when he wrote Gulliver's Travels. (which is the reason why he chose that name)

originally posted by: Thorneblood
Regardless of what you might think, people need leaders.

... which is why my issue is with the people.

The Royals do not rule the British populace. Suggest you read up on Cromwell for some understanding of the British political system and monarchy.