Blognor Regis :
'why, generally, do the same people who reckon someone is totally British the instant he prises his fingers off the underside of a Eurostar almost always describe The Queen as "a German" despite her being able to trace her ancestors back to the 7th Century Kings of Wessex and 6th Century Scots ?'
Blinds
5 hours ago
6 comments:
That IS a good sally.
Maybe something to do with the name von SaxeCoburg-Gotha that was changed in WWI for public morale purposes.....
Being directly descended from the Hanoverian Georges (I thru IV) and Victoria's very German husband Prince Albert may also have something to do with it!
Because the speaker is using shorthand for saying "not one of us". They do think the illegal is acceptable because they are a designated victim group, but the royals are very definitely non-U, because they are a reminder of Empire and worse.
As it happens, I frequently describe the Royals as one non-English culture or another. Currently I find myself working in Scotland, where the inevitable litany of perfidy is a standard topic of conversation. At such times I find it very pleasing to remind my hosts that come independence, the Scots get to keep "their" royals and all of Ulster.
But George I wasn't just picked as a random German - the point was that he was the grandson of James I (via James' daughter Elizabeth). He represented the protestant line of descent as opposed to the Catholic one via James II.
Unless you have a thing about not accepting descent via the female sex, George I had exactly the same degree of relatedness to Maud the Empress, and thence to Alfred the great as the Old Pretender did.
It really would be a sad state of affairs if we still couldn't consider someone as British when their ancestors learned the language and changed their name to fit in with local customs. Complete integration and mixed marriage should ensure that the descendents are at least considered as fully British, surely?
Quite right. Send the lot of them back - monarchs or not.
Post a Comment