#hanoverian dynasty

[georgeivsexpiredbrandy]

The joke here is that, by Wellington's first run as Prime Minister, King George IV was so morbidly obese that he had to sleep upright in a chair

I have officially decided that their names are Georgia and Adeline (though the latter will be referred to simply as "Wellington" much like her real life counterpart) i might also refer to Georgia as "Augusta" after the Augustus in actual George IV's name or "Fredericka" for the same reason. ALSO THEIR SHIP NAME IS REGENTDUKE MUAHAHAHHAHSHAJ

[diemelusine]

George V of Hanover (1861) by Conrad L'Allemand. Celle Castle.

[whencyclopedia]

Charles I of England

Charles I of England (r. 1625-1649) was a Stuart king who, like his father James I of England (r. 1603-1625), viewed himself as a monarch with absolute power and a divine right to rule. His lack of compromise with Parliament led to the English Civil Wars (1642-51), his execution, and the abolition of the monarchy in 1649.

King Charles grew tired of wrangles with Parliament over money and so decided to do without that institution for eleven years. Then between 1640 and 1642, Charles was obliged to call Parliament to raise cash for his campaigns against a Scottish army, which had occupied northern England, and a full-blown rebellion in Ireland, both fuelled by religious differences and the king’s high-handed policies. Parliament attempted to guarantee its own future, and when the king broke his promises of reform, war broke out. The English Civil War was largely fought between ‘Roundheads’ (Parliamentarians) and ‘Cavaliers’ (Royalists) in over 600 battles and sieges in England alone. Ultimately, the professional New Model Army won the day for Parliament and Charles I was tried and found guilty of treason to his own people and government. The king was executed on 30 January 1649. Oliver Cromwell (1599-1658) ruled the ‘commonwealth’ republic as Lord Protector, but his death was soon followed by the restoration of the monarchy in 1660. The new king was Charles’ son, Charles II of England (r. 1660–1685).

Family & Early Life

Charles was born on 19 November 1600 in Dunfermline Palace, Scotland. His father was James I of England (who was also James VI of Scotland, r. 1567-1625), and his mother was Anne of Denmark (l. 1574-1619), the daughter of Frederick II of Denmark and Norway (r. 1559-1588). Charles’ grandmother was Mary, Queen of Scots (r. 1542-1567). James I was of the royal Stuart line, and he had unified the thrones of Scotland and England after Elizabeth I of England (r. 1558-1603) left no heir. Charles was the second son of King James, but his elder brother Henry died of typhoid fever in 1612 and so he became the heir apparent. Charles’ elder sister Elizabeth (b. 1596) married the King of Bohemia, and her grandson would rule England as George I of England (r. 1714-1727), the first of the Hanoverian Dynasty.

Charles did not enjoy robust health as a child, he was shy - perhaps because of his stammer, and he always came second-best when compared to his more favoured brother Henry. Reaching maturity, Charles spent a lot of time with King James’ hated courtier George Villiers, the Duke of Buckingham. The duke was seen as a talentless social upstart who had enjoyed a meteoric rise only thanks to the king’s infatuation with him.

In 1624 it was arranged for Charles to marry Henrietta Maria (1609-1669), the young sister of Louis XIII of France (1610-1643). The French royal obviously did not mind the small stature of her betrothed - a mere 1.6 metres tall (5ft 4 in) or his reputation for being rather stubborn, dull-witted, and a complete stranger to a sense of humour. The couple went on to have nine children, the two eldest sons being Charles (b. 1630) and James (b. 1633), both of whom would one day become king.

Continue reading...

[brf-rumortrackinganon]

Let's talk about the racism that Meghan experienced in UK

"I do think Meghan did experience some racism in the press - like that horrible monkey photo after Archie was born - if not as much as she said."

If all Meghan had done was said “this isn’t right and you know it” every time there was legitimate racism (aka, speak softly), the public would’ve hung, drawn, quartered, flayed, and burned the press alive for her (the big stick).

Firstly, the radio personality who posted that monkey photo to his social media had done that for every single royal baby since George. He did it for George, Charlotte, Louis and Archie. It was his way of mocking the idea of royal babies being paraded as if they were performing monkeys. The image he used was of a real life socialite couple from the 1930s who kept a monkey and dressed it up and paraded it for amusement. It hit badly with Archie because he is part black and the radio personality claimed he didn't know Meghan or Archie were black because he doesn't follow the royals at all and was aware that Harold had married, but not the minute details involved.

He publicly apologised profusely after he found out and pulled down the picture immediately. As a very public radio personality with over 30yrs standing, he'd never shown or said anything racist that we were aware of, and had a spotless record which made his public explanation believable if you lived in the UK. Other countries, having different racial history and different relationship to their public figures refused to accept his explanation and also refused to accept that this was a one off incident by one person, a radio personality on his own IG account simply tarred entire UK media with this incident as did Markle and Harry. 

Secondly, the girlfriend of a far right political leader had a very public racist twitter conversation about Archie and Meghan. The DM publicly shamed her and published her twitter thread as the perfect example of unacceptable behaviour from public figures and their WAGs. 

Boris Johnson's sister wrote about Meghan's exotic blood adding to the thin blue blood of royal family. This is a template article trotted out every time a royal gets married. It is a celebratory article that points to the most obvious difference between them and frames it as advantageous for the royals to have the new in-law because it improves their thin blue blood!!

The language is always unfortunate no matter which royal bride they pick on. 

For Kate, the same article described  how her working class blood from her coal miner ancestors would enrich the thin blue blood of the royals. Honestly, the way they repeatedly reported on Carole's working class, coal mining roots, you'd think that Kate had emerged from the coal mines a minute before her engagement photocall. There was a strong element of calling Carole and Kate upstarts for daring to emerge from their coal mining ancestors to marry the Prince of the realms. You see this point geing made even in comedy shows like The Windsors where Kate is depicted as having travellers ( Romani people) background. 

If you google archive articles written about Sophie, Fergie and Diana, you'll find that this type of article was written about them too. 

In Diana's case, her article was framed as Charles marrying up because the Spencers are trophy aristocrats whose titles are *older than the Windsor titles. 

*There is a whole aristocratic snobbery thing about dates titles/ dynasty are created. The older the title/ dynasty creation date, the more aristocratic you are perceived to be. So the Spencer title/ creation created in the 17th century is more aristocratic than the Hanoverian/ Saxe- Coburg-Gotha/Windsor titles/ creation. Ditto older and more aristocratic than Philip's Edinburgh titles which is why Diana could be cheeky to him about it. 

In Meghan's case, this template article hit badly because the language used to describe her difference has become racialised in some instances and so this article was interpreted as racist. 

Ditto the straight out of Compton article which can be substituted for the many, many articles written about Kate and her coal mining ancestors. 

The headline came from a clueless editor who thought they'd be witty by using the title of same name movie that was out around this time and had played very well in the UK. 

Reading the article, i was struck at the class digs therein. Just like the class digs at Kate 7yrs earlier. It was quite offensive in that respect. But everyone chose to read the headline and nothing more and be offended by their racist interpretation of the headline and ignore the more offensive classist article. 

For your point about the public coming to Meghan's defence when each of these things happened.....they did. The whole country was outraged. The popuoar radio personality was sacked less than an hour after that monkey picture went up and despite understanding his explanation, he was cancelled and remains cancelled to this day. He has disappeared completely from the public. Not even one of those 'where is he?' Type artivles/ pap pics retrospectives about him. Gone. Finito. Never to be accepted back in public life.

Ditto the political leader and his girlfriend. It says alot when even our own far-right figures find that kind of language from their own leaders unacceptable. He resigned from the party within days of that article. Cancelled never to be heard from again. 

The problem is that Meghan and Harry keep repeating these ergregious incidents as if they were happening repeatedly, and that entire UK media was engaged in them and also remove context so that uninformed public think that Megyan was continually racially abused by UK media. 

Between you and me, i think the DM tried to walk back their straight outta compton article by going on a crusade to shame other more ergregious racists to distract from their own mistake, but also to show Markle that they could and would defend her. Other UK media took the same route, but unfortunately for everyone, she didn't accept and instead twisted their defence to pretend the UK media was actively and deliberately racially abusing her. And that's the narrative that has stuck. 

*****

Old ask from March 4th. It’s from the discussion we were having about Scobie’s handling/presentation of racism in Endgame. I think you can find some of the earlier conversation in the Endgame tag.

[monarchslover]

Hello! My name is Arisu.❤ I love history and historical figures. Also I love " The emperor's new groove" and " The emperor's new school ". Kuzco is my favorite character. ✨💅 I will write stories and facts about my favorite historical figures, sometimes I will post fanarts.👑

My muse @greatgaiuscaesar

My favorite cartoons:

The emperor's new groove

The emperor's new school

All hail king Julien

My favorite dynasties:

Romanov ( Russia )

Bourbon ( France )

Julio - Claudian ( Roman Empire)

Habsburg ( Holy Roman Empire )

Wittelsbach ( Bavaria )

Stuart ( Britain )

Ottoman ( Ottoman Empire)

Mughal ( India)

Chingizid ( Mongol Empire )

Mauryan ( India )

Hohenzollern ( Prussia )

Draculesti ( Romania )

Burgundian ( Castile and Leon )

Wessex ( England )

Hanoverian ( Britain )

Abbasid ( Abbasid Chalifat )

Solomonic ( Ethiopia )

Luxembourg ( Czech )

Argead ( Macedonia )

Artashesid ( Armenia )

Comnenos ( Byzantine )

If you are interested in any of these topics, you can discuss it with me.😉

[evilelitest2]

Ukraine Russia ConflictPart three, the Kievan Rus

Ok so where did this conflict start?  To understand that, we need to go back to the 9th century, where records are short, legends are long, and nationalists search the seas for mythological times to pine back too.  Welcome to Kievan Rus, aka Ruthenian, aka Svitjod the Great, aka Svitjod the Cold, aka “The place where Russian and Ukraine both trace their origins to this point. 

If anything, this map makes things too clean

 But before we talk about the Rus, we need to talk about “Periodization”.  Periodization is one of the most important concepts about being a historian, it's the dividing the past into distinct parts so it can be easier to understand. If you’ve ever studied Japanese History and are looking at the “Edo Period” or the ‘Showa Period” that's periodization, it's cutting up the past into distinct units.  Periodization is in many ways necessary to understand the past, you can’t study all of it or you will go mad, but it can create these divisions in time which don’t necessarily exist naturally.  A great example of this is the Early Modern Period, which historians use to highlight the development of the trends that will eventually emerge into the modern world.  The slow rise of capitalism, the slow death of feudalism (except in Russia), the downfall of the hegemony of the Catholic Church, the start of mass media, the first movements towards industrialization, the rise of the first global colonial empire and the creation of modern states.  It’s a very useful framework to understand the changes that happened in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries.  However, if you are a random Hanoverian peasant, as far as you know, there isn’t any difference between 1491 and 1492.  Time periods are useful but they aren’t ironclad things, like money, it's an illusion, just a functional and useful illusion.

nice and simple

The reason why that tangent mattered is that when it comes to what is called “National History”.  So you have a nation right, a whole new cool nation.  How do you make sure everybody is part of this nation?  Oh well you have public schools and in those public schools you have textbooks which teach the history of your country, how neat is that?  So..where do  you start?  History is long and it can be difficult to teach.  Like if the US finally got a national history curriculum, where would you start?  People have lived in the lands of the United states since at least 10,000 BCE, do we start there?  Do we start with the first European arrival in the colonies?   These aren’t neat or easy to answer questions, debates over “where do we start our history” can get really intense.   A lot of French history books will teach the Gauls to be like “look, these are our ancestors” but there is literally a thousand years separating the conquest of Gaul from the Emergence of France.  

Utterly uncomplicated in every way

Periodization matters for our purposes because both Ukraine and Russia point to the Kevian Rus as “the start of their civilization.” and while the events of the late 9th century shouldn’t be affecting us today, apparently it does.

 Another note is that the Kevian Rus is a bit hard to document due to the fact that the people didn’t have a writing system, so what we know comes from archaeological evidence and outside sources, so the make up and borders of this region is a bit hard to define with certainty but fuck it lets go. 

The Kievan Rus consisted of most of central and eastern Ukraine, Belarus, and the western chunk of Russia, and as the name implies it was based in Kiev, what is today the capital of Ukraine, though it wasn’t known as the Kievan Rus at the time, it was called the land of the Rus (due to the ruling Rurik dynasty) or just “Rus''. The earliest version of the word Russia refers to the eastern half of the Kievan Rus, while the western half (what is today Ukraine) was known as Ruthenia.   Since its origins are the stuff of legend, it might have been founded by Norse traders, or Norse people were invited to rule, or a bunch of Vikings settled peacefully in the area, it's a huge flame war among nationalists that isn’t relevant other than to show how much people still care about this area.  The Rus was a major trade network in the area and it was more of a loose confederation of city states rather than a strong centralized empire.  

Most relevant to our story is there relationship to the Byzantine Empire

Byzantium at its largest extent

  TANGENT TIME.  The Byzantine Empire was never called that during their time, they always thought of themselves as the Roman Empire.  When Constantine the Great converted the Empire to Christianity, he moved the capital to the new city of Constantinople (famously the modern city of Istanbul).  A century or so later, the empire split into East and West, with the East being seen as the greater and more powerful of the two.  The Western Roman Empire fell in 476 AD, the east just…kept on going until 1453.   No I’m not kidding, this matters for understanding Ukraine, those Zelensky memes were created in the legacy of Justinian the Great, keep watching.  As mentioned earlier, Western Empire goes Catholic, the Eastern goes Orthodox, and after the west falls, the Eastern Roman Empire keeps on going.  We call it the Byzantine Empire for…complicated reasons I might explore some day.  Anyways, by the time of the Kevian Rus, the Byzantines are the supreme cultural, military and most importantly economic power of Eastern Europe, and the Rus are basically massive fucking simps for them.  Like “please notice me Patriarch senpai '' simps.  They even played a major role in the Varangian Guard, the personal bodyguards of the Byzantine Emperor.  

The Rus were pagan at the time, a mix of the norse pantheon and the Slavic pantheon (pagan religion is complicated and deeply synthetic, I might talk about that in another post), but due to its location it always had Christian, Jewish and Muslim minorities, but it should come as no surprise that in 988 Volodymyr the I or Vladimir the Great converted the kingdom to Christianity, and due his taking a Byzantine bride and thus marrying into the Imperial family, it was of course Orthodox Christainity, thus starting over a thousand years of Orthodoxy in the region.  Anyways, eventually all good things came to an end and by the 12th century it suffered the weaknesses of feudal confederacy (succession crisis) and had largely broken apart in all but name, as local feudal lords sort of went their own way.  This is where the Russian/Ukrainian split first sort of not really occurs, the informal overall Rus still exist but you get these smaller Rus within it, the Novgorod Rus, the Moscow Rus, the Vladimir Rus.  But the distinction between the various Rus comes to matter less than you’d expect because suddenly…MONGOLS 

I really can’t empathize enough how big of a deal the Mongols were on the world stage, and probably one of the few legitimate examples of the Great Man theory of history proving true.  Temujin’s abandonment issues eventually result in an empire which destroys the Status Quo of the Eurasian world, and leads to the largest continental empire in history.  In the Mid 13th century, Temujin, later known as Chiggis Khan (Ghengis Khan to the West) would create the most terrifying military machine in history to that point, which would wipe out whole civilizations.   So suddenly all these Mongols show up and wipe out…basically everything.  The Rus?  Gone.  The Civilization that originated both Russia and Ukraine is now definitely gone for good.  The Mongols keep the East, which becomes part of the “Golden Hoard”, while the west reforms as the Galician-Volhynian Principality, and eventually gets eaten by Poland and Lithuanian.  

Now there have been entire series of books written about the culture, political structure and history of the Kievan Rus but what matters to us is its legacy in the historical memory of Slavic nationalists, the Rus is considered the origin point of both Russia and Ukraine, and many Russian nationalists feel that Kiev is there birthright.  For Americans, this can be a bit hard to imagine because the US has never lost major territory in its history but imagine if Pennsylvania became an independent nation, and now we have all these places of national significance in another country.  Hell we can take this further, Imagine if the East Coast became independent, and Texas history books talk about the founding of the US, but all of the places where the US was created are now outside there territory.   Now that isn’t a justification, “oh my ancestors once lived there so I get to invade’ is stupid.  Also the later Principality of Moscow and the Princedom of Galicia-Volhynia will each claim to be the “true” heir to the Rus, in a manner very similar to the Holy Roman Empire actually.  This isn’t the only thing causing the conflict, but nationalist fanfiction about the origin of the Slavs still plays a major role in modern politics.  This also is a big part of why Russian nationalists don’t consider Ukraine a thing, to them Ukraine is just a different part of Russia with funny accents, not their own nation with their own history.  The Russian conquest of Ukraine (the first one) was presented as a reclaiming of traditional Russian land, not the taking of a foreign land.

Next time, Russian history, because nothing says “I’m going to explain the conflict in Ukraine” like spending most of it on Russia. 

[bantarleton]

The Arrival of the Elector Palatine at Flushing, 20 April 1613 by Adam Willaerts. It shows Princess Elizabeth (James VI's daughter) with her husband Frederick V of the Palatinate arriving in the Netherlands. Their children would go on to found Britain's Hanoverian dynasty.

[scotianostra]

On 7th February 1716, the Jacobite army disbanded at Aberdeen, ending the 1715 uprising.

James Francis Edward Stuart had fled to France with many leading Jacobites three days earlier and it would be almost thirty years before his son Charles would try to claim the throne.

When Queen Anne, the subject of yesterdays post, died on August 1st, 1714, inadvertently fulfilling her ancestor James V’s prophecy about the House of Stuart – “it cam wi’ a lass, it’ll gang wi’ a lass.” The Stuarts had ruled over Scotland and then the United Kingdom since 1371, and the end of the dynasty was viewed by many Scots as a tragedy.

Her successor George I, Elector of Hanover, arrived in London seven weeks later to claim his throne, but there was already considerable resentment against him because Scotland were imposed with the Hanoverian succession – there would be no separate crowning at Scone for this King of Scots.

Yes there had been another uprising a few years before, but historians all agree that the ‘15 was the best opportunity to put their monarch of choice back on the throne.

James’s cause in the west of the highlands proved unattractive at first, but Aberdeen, Dundee and Inverness fell to Mar without a shot, the only major stronghold north of the Tay that was still in Hanoverian government hands was Fort William.

Perth was captured in late September but a lighting raid on Edinburgh Castle by a small detachment of Jacobites failed – reportedly there were enough arms and cash deposits in the Castle to equip half an army.As it was, Mar now had thousands of troops under his command and James Stuart, who had no prior knowledge of the rising, made him his commander – but where was the ‘king’ himself? James was agitating with the French government to give him men and ships to no avail, but in Scotland and England, the rising was already well under way.

Against Mar stood only the troops under the Duke of Argyll’s command, and they were surely too few in number to stand against the Jacobites, even though reinforcements came from the Hanoverian garrison in Ireland.The Jacobite lords of Northumberland had risen, and were supposed to meet up with a force heading south through the west coast of England. This consisted of English Jacobites and a force from the Scottish Borders and at first they, too, swept aside all resistance.

However their ambitions were thwarted following their failings at the Battle of Sheriffmuir, and Bobbin John’s inadequacies as a leader in not pressing home the advantage, The Earl of Mar, to give him his real name, was by nature a ditherer, inexperienced in command and reluctant to advance without having an overwhelming force.

Argyll’s army was outnumbered two to one but he had experienced and battle-hardened troops under him, as well as a superior cavalry force. Mar’s Jacobites were inexperienced in mass pitched battles, and their commander was no strategist.

The tale of the Battle of Sheriffmuir on November 13, 1715, is simple – both right wings smashed through their opponents, the clans’ highland charge sending the government army into flight.

Crucially, they lost discipline and chased after the fleeing force and without those troops, Mar decided to hold his ground because Argyll’s right wing had beaten the Jacobite army’s left wing, albeit with heavy losses.

Mar may not have known that Argyll was down to around 1000 effective troops and that victory was his for the taking. Whatever the reason, Mar did not press home any further attack and though he claimed victory because there were slightly more dead Hanoverian soldiers than Jacobites, the strategic advantage had been lost and the Rising in Scotland had effectively been halted.

At the same time in England the Jacobites were beaten at Preston, ending their part in the Uprising.

It was over a month before James Stuart arrived in Scotland on a single ship with no soldiers and no clear idea what he wanted to do. Argyll sat waiting for reinforcements, while many of Mar’s troops went home to bed down for the winter.

The Jacobite King was devoid of command skills and charisma, and was also sick, which forced him to cancel a planned coronation at Scone and return to France, where he had been living under the protection of King Louis XIV of France, he never set foot in Scotland again, and it would be up to his as of then unborn son to try nearly 30 years later.

While the '15 Uprising may not be engrained in the Scots psyche, like the '45 is, their were severe ramifications for some, and executions of ringleaders followed, the most notable being the William Gordon, 6th Viscount of Kenmure, and James Radclyffe, the Earl of Derwentwater. Other notable Jacobites forfeited their titles and lands.

There's loads more on both Uprisings on a PDF here Y https://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2020-09/Jacobite%20Trail.pdf

[kostantina]

Hello, welcome to my blog!

Here, I write mostly about Holy Rome from Hetalia, and if you are curious about my thoughts on him, then feel free to message me or leave a comment on one of my posts :) I love talking about him, whether the young, old, or female him. But I personally love portraying him as older and female. Despite that, I write non-ship posts about HRE as male because it is his canon gender. I enjoy (Female/Male) HRE/HRE!Germany with different characters, either platonically, romantically, or both:

England - Hanoverian Dynasty - nominal vassalage

France - the Frankish Kingdom - "i wanted you to die, but now that you're dead i want you alive."

Papal States - Investiture Controversy - the sun and the moon - two swords- "YOu CanT DePoSED ME Im THe-"

Czechia - Kingdom of Bohemia - Prague - mistress/handmaiden trope -

America - golden pair - very powerful at such a young age - considered themselves heroes

Spain - "the empire where the sun never sets" of Charles V

Austria - Habsburg Dynasty - longest reigning monarch of the Holy Roman Empire

Prussia - a German hospital and military order - Brandenburg-Prussia

Portugal - a friend of a friend who is maybe in love

Hungary - women with princes in distress to save ⚔

Romano - Kingdom of Sicily - Stupor Mundi

Ottoman Empire - insert Reichskrieg DVD

Italy - first love dies or never dies

Saxony - Ottonian Dynasty - East Francia

Bavaria - "BIG BROTHER CHAMPIONSHIP"

Francia - Carolingian Dynasty - father and child

Hanover - divided loyalty (Half British, Half German)

Hesse - New World's traveling partners

Talking about the "HRE is Germany theory," I think Hima leans towards this theory more than not, but I hope that he would remain vague about it to please everyone. Personally, I don't want him to be Germany in canon because the Holy Roman Empire had historical differences with Germany that I feel would be overshadowed if the two ended up being the same person. I also have my own interpretation of the character, which does not align with how I interpret Germany. But I deeply deeply love using the theory for narrative purposes, and I think HRE!Germany without amnesia would be different than with.

P.S. I reblog other content than Hetalia.

[ratuszarsenal]

Oh my goodness PLEASE elaborate on the tags of your badly explained hyperfixation!

good evening! the first half referred to the relationship between Keith Windham and Ewen Cameron from The Flight of the Heron, a jacobite historical novel, which is everything I love in a book and then some. Keith starts out merely respecting Ewen (and admiring his physique), but their relationship slowly morphs into a deep friendship/love and I fell for it at page 1, hook line sinker

the second half referred to jacobitism itself, which I have been interested in for years. jacobitism is incredibly complicated as both a subject for scholarship and a political/ideological movement, but its core tenet was to restore the Stuart dynasty to the throne of Britain (or just Scotland -- it's complicated), which had been ceded to the Hanoverian dynasty in 1714

[georgeivsexpiredbrandy]

Woo coloured versions of Georgia and Adeline i made these in like 30 minutes so it's pretty bad

Lovely fatass Augusta describing her most recent fling. If you take the time to actually read what she's saying, which is nearly impossible, you'll notice that she is considerably less forgiving than actual King George IV. This is intentional, I think all of the Hanoverian dynasty kings would be ruthless gossip lovers as women. You might also notice that she is oddly sickly pale, especially when compared to Wellington. This is because — 1. She is literally just way less healthy than the people around her, go figure, and 2. To remind myself of the fact that she eventually DIES way before Adeline does. Her skin is supposed to look like that of a fresh corpse. Not decomposing, but not really alive either. She'd definitely be slightly less healthy than her real life counterpart, too. Due to both giving birth to a child and her apetite. Not like she'd eat less, though. In fact, her diet would probably even heavier. I can just imagine her as a more lively person – the kind of person that insists on going on walks and eating fruit every day to stay healthy. Her chest is also significantly larger than Wellington's, meant to emulate actual George IV's allegedly MASSIVE.. manly jewel.

Yeah, Georgia was not wearing pants while describing her wonderful, probably criminal of a date.

Unlike Georgia's colours, which I took creative liberty with due to being used to drawing King George IV quite a bit, all of Adeline's colour scheme is taken from Wellington's portrait. She'd definitely be the "aloof, mysterious, nonchalant dreadhead with no dreads"— Think, like, Sweden from Hetalia. She's the type to give a spider burial rights after brutally murdering it. I made her hair atrocious because I've always imagined Wellington having terribly messy hair. Also, until looking closely at Arthur's portrait to extract the colours, I never knew he had green eyes! The more you know, huh? Anyways, if I had to describe her, I would say.. ugly. Just kidding. I would say insufferable. She's that one kid in class that tries to act all mysterious n cool, but then you find them eating fucking LUNCHLY during break, in the bathroom, while having their period. She also would GENUINELY have that kind of "protective alpha" mentality, which Georgia finds both disgusting and amusing.

[farizrz]

Since I very lack Knowledge about royal thing, I do little research about why Trystan's middle name change and I found some interesting about regnal name in Wikipedia. full article in here

REGNAL NAME

A regnal name, or regnant name or reign name, is the name used by monarchs and popes during their reigns and, subsequently, historically. Since ancient times, some monarchs have chosen to use a different name from their original name when they accede to the monarchy.

The regnal name is usually followed by a regnal number, written as a Roman numeral, to differentiate that monarch from others who have used the same name while ruling the same realm. In some cases, the monarch has more than one regnal name, but the regnal number is based on only one of those names, for example Charles X Gustav of Sweden. If a monarch reigns in more than one realm, they may carry different ordinals in each one, as some realms may have had different numbers of rulers of the same regnal name. For example, the same person was both King James VI of Scotland and King James I of England.

The ordinal is not normally used for the first ruler of the name, but is used in historical references once the name is used again. Thus, Queen Elizabeth I of England was called simply "Elizabeth of England" until the accession of Queen Elizabeth II almost four centuries later in 1952; subsequent historical references to the earlier queen retroactively refer to her as Elizabeth I. However, Tsar Paul I of Russia, King Umberto I of Italy, King Juan Carlos I of Spain, Emperor Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia and Pope John Paul I all used the ordinal I (first) during their reigns. In spoken English, such names are pronounced as "Elizabeth the First", "George the Sixth", etc.

In some countries in Asia, monarchs took or take era names. While era names as such are not used in many monarchies, sometimes eras are named after a monarch (usually long-lived), or a succession of monarchs of the same name. This is customary; there is no formal or general rule. For example, the whole period during which a succession of four Georges (George I, II, III, and IV) of the Hanoverian dynasty reigned in Great Britain became known as the Georgian era. Conversely, although there were many Edwards, the Edwardian era always refers to the reign of Edward VII at the beginning of the 20th century.

[thelanguageofbirdsrp]

👑 Live now: an overview of the au historical-fantasy British Monarchy!

The Hanoverian Monarchy originated in the House of Hanover, the Duchy of Brunswick-Lüneburg. Due to the provisions of the Act of Settlement, which stipulated that only Thaumaturgy descendants of Sophia, granddaughter of James I, could ascend to the British throne, the House of Hanover was chosen as the next in line after the last Stuart monarch, Queen Anne, died without heirs. ⚜️George I: The first Hanoverian monarch faced challenges like the Jacobite uprisings, which aimed to restore the Stuart dynasty. ⚜️George II: His reign saw continued Jacobite threats, conflicts with France during the War of Austrian Succession and the Seven Years' War, and the rise of the British Empire. ⚜️George III: Perhaps best known for his long reign and the American Revolution, George III's later years were marked by mental illness, which led to the Regency Era. ⚜️George IV: Known for his extravagant lifestyle and architectural patronage, he ruled as Prince Regent during his father's illness. ⚜️William IV: His short reign witnessed the passing of the Great Reform Act, which began the process of parliamentary reform. ⚜️Arthur I: Britain new King, about whom rumors stir and controversy whispers. Time will tell if King Arthur I’s reign is blessed by the High Fairie.

Questions and feedback are welcome.

[youarebeingshaggedbyarareparrot]

So I reckon Hob has a hecking complicated relationship with his religion, but I’m intrigued by the idea of Hob interacting with the notion of ‘The Divine Right of Kings’. And at which point he chucked out the idea as the horse shit it is.

What do you guys think?

1389!Hob – No Kings, No Masters

- In the last decade, Hob’s seen a boy king take the throne, the Peasants’ Revolt, common folk being ground down and serfdom being the way of life for most folk. Fuck that, fuck the King.

1489!Hob – Lost him with Bosworth and books

- The War of The Roses see the end of the Plantagenet line, with murderers and usurpers on the throne. God loves a trier, but really? Also, books. Folks are reading and learning and thinking for themselves, not everything has to come from the king or the church.

1589!Hob – Nailing that shit to the privy council door

- In the desperation of trying to secure its’ legacy, Hob watched the Tudor dynasty break from the church and then just straight up break the church, and is now seeing a royal court from the inside. This dog and pony show is a fucking joke my guys.

1689!Hob – The Royal Oak has its’ bow split

- Divine right didn’t save Charles ii and whatever the fuck Cromwell was didn’t save England either. They’ve had to import royalty lately, have you seen this?

1789!Hob – the Whigs be trying and the wigs be flying

- I’m sorry, run that by me again… How many candidates with a more legitimate claim did you skip over because of ideological differences before you came to George I? 56?… I’m out. The Hanoverians can fucking have it.

1889!Hob – We are no longer fucking amused

- It’s actually a little funny how the tail end of the Hanoverian dynasty was a mad dash for legitimacy and now the Victorians as a society are so fucking repressed and by little funny, Hob means he wants to bite something. Also the genetics have got to be fuuuucked by now

1989!Hob -

- Abdication, rebranding to The House of Windsor, the strained and unhappy marriages… Hob honestly doesn’t know why they’re keeping up the show at this stage.

2022!Hob - Darkest Timeline

- Baby. Baby no, please tell me this is a joke?

[walkfromhome]

The (Central Asian) Khazar name is derived from Turkic *qaz-, meaning "to wander." The Ashina was considered a sacred clan of quasi-divine status. Q1 actually refers to the subclade Q-P36.2.  The Ashina clan, a noble caste, carry the 16q24.3 "red gene" inherited from the Sumerian Annunaki, the root of the Dragon seed that permeates royal lines: Merovingian, Carolingian, Tudor, Plantagenet, Stuart, Hapsburg, Hanoverian, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Guelph, Bowes-Lyon, Battenberg (Mountbatten), Guise, and Savoy families - and Transylvanian lineages. The Davidic House of Judah married into the descent of the Merovingian Kings of the Franks. They are connected by a shared bloodline. The dragon archetype rests within the Dragon blood, passed on through the genes.

According to Nicholas de Vere, "Briefly, the Dragon lineage starts in the Caucasus with the Annunaki, descending through migrating proto-Scythians to the Sumerians while branching off also into the early Egyptians, Phoenicians and Mittani. A marriage bridge back to Scythia infused the Elvin line of “Tuatha de Danaan” and the Fir Bolg, which branched into the Arch-Druidic, Priest-Princely family to the Royal Picts of Scotland and the ring kings of the Horse Lords of Dal Riada, through the Elven dynasty of Pendragon and Avallon del Acqs, and down to a few pure bred families today."

The Royal Court of the Dragon was founded by the priests of Mendes in about 2200 BC and was subsequently ratified by the 12th dynasty Queen Sobeknefru. This sovereign and priestly Order passed from Egypt to the Kings of Jerusalem; to the Black Sea Princes of Scythia (Princess Milouziana of the Scythians) and into the Balkans - notably to the Royal House of Hungary, whose King Sigismund reconstituted the Court just 600 years ago. Sigismund’s assumed descent from Melusine. Her ancestry actually can be traced back to the Scythian Dragon Princess Scota, Queen Sobekh Nefru and the Egyptian Cult of the Dragon. Vlad Dracul was a minion of Sigismund of Luxembourg, and was educated at the Emperor's court in Nuremberg. Dracul was invested into Societas Draconis.

The Byzantine Emperor Constantine was a Dragon King. The Byzantine emperor Leo III married his son Constantine (V) to the Khazar princess as part of the alliance between the two empires. Princess Tzitzak was baptized as Irene. Their son Leo (Leo IV) was known as "Leo the Khazar", emperor of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire from 775 to 780.

The re-expansion of paternal group R1b and maternal group H from the Basque Ice Age refuge spread up the coasts of all the countries facing the Atlantic, after the ice melted. The British Isles retained higher rates than the other countries, for several reasons related specifically to early movements directly from the Basque country rather than from general diffusion from western Europe. First, as a result of lower sea levels, the British Isles, in particular Ireland, were connected and at the furthest edge of the extended Ice Age European continent, and thus received the bulk of early coastal migration. Then, as sea levels rose, first Ireland then Britain became islands, relatively insulated from further migration from elsewhere in Europe, thus preserving their high rates of R1b and similarity to the initial settlements. The means by which I could separate the R1b types in the British Isles from those on the other side of the channel is by the use of “Founder Analysis.” That is, looking at the detail of their gene types (so-called STR haplotypes). These revealed 21 founding clusters, which could only have arrived direct from the Basque country. Their descendant twigs are unique to the British Isles.

(Source)

[autodidactprofessor]

George I of Great Britain: The Hanoverian Dynasty

Family Background George I, born as Georg Ludwig on May 28, 1660, in Osnabrück, was the eldest son of Ernest Augustus and Sophia of the Palatinate. His father, Ernest Augustus, ruled as the Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg, a significant position in the fragmented Holy Roman Empire. His mother, Sophia, connected George to the English throne through her lineage as a granddaughter of King James I of…