What type of Descents does make up the our Royal Family?
403384
If you are talking about the United Kingdom it is German Russian and French.
1042956
I agree. Get rid of the royal family. They are no use to no-one. Not to workers or capitalists. It should be the one and only thing in witch  both of you would unite in.\nIt really amazes, how the english peolple accepts some dozen of human beings just party with style and luxury all their lives from birth to grave, and all is payed from taxes. A dream life for nothing.
452581
They've always used Wales as their last name in school ever since they were small children. It helped them fit in not being a "Windsor" in class. \nAs for last names in general, the royal family tends to use whatever names they want willy-nilly. They don't need last names, and only recently have royals really used them, because more and more of them have more regular "civilian" style lives, outside of the palace. \nPrince Edward, the Earl of Wessex, goes by Edward Wessex, but before he got married and got that title, he used to go by Edward Windsor. His wife Sophie also goes by Sophie Wessex. Prince Andrew (the Duke of York)'s daughters both go by Beatrice and Eugenie York. \nIt's just a way of distinguishing themselves from one another and trying to fit into the populace a little better.\nLast names really don't mean too much to them.\nAnd in 1960, the Queen made it "law" that her descedants would take the surname Mountbatten-Windsor to include her husband's last name, not just her own. And Windsor, I believe, was not a family name. George V changed it from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (which WAS a family name) to keep it less German sounding.
446044
Not nearly enough. Neither are there enough women. As a rough guess I would say 5% are black. Sadly our democracy is still mainly made up of white anglosaxon men. The queen is a woman, but royalty is anti-democratic. A black king would be good though.
368814
Join. protect the queen and her fortune. Be proud. Join the ranks of history
724014
I like the queen.  Classy lady.  But we Americans are far too zealous and alpha-type to tolerate a legitimate monarch.  I don't see any real benefit, other than an upstanding example of good manners and breeding.  Our "faux-royalty" is composed of inbred, dysfunctional political families and freakish entertainers.  If it doesn't entertain, it doesn't get air time over here.
129026
The Sultans play more of a "ceremonial" role- Very similary to the Queen of England.  In England, parliment and the Prime Minister make the decions but the Queen and the Royal Family serve as a figure head.
550805
Sorry, but how would anyone know the answer except Prince William. My advice is to find his email address and go ask him.
656256
No, Queen Victoria was the daughter of Edward, Duke of Kent, whom she bore a very strong resemblance to. \n\nThere will always be rumours about the paternity of various royal children: Prince Andrew and Prince Harry are two other examples of this and both rumours are completely false.
623777
In Tsarist Russia, the young daughters of Nicholas II, the last Tsar, were Archduchesses.\n\nCould also be "heiress"; the Prince of Wales is heir to the throne.
429183
I doubt it, although it's not a bad idea.\nI think modern day royals are less into being royal nowadays, and it's just not practical to be so far removed from society and clueless as to how regular people live their lives. Queen Elizabeth's younger children, Andrew and Edward, have really strayed from the typical royal routine and are fairly "normal" people. I think this trend is likely to continue in the future, which is good!\nAnyhow, as to marrying outside the royal circle, I think because these younger royals are more involved in a normal everyday style of living (as far as a royal CAN be, that is) I think the more at ease they are with so-called commoners and have more in common with them, personality-wise. Fifty years ago, NO ONE in the royal family would have considered marrying someone like Sarah Ferguson or Sophie Rhys-Jones, who worked for a living and so forth.\n\n(As for the "inbreeding" comment, royals all over the world have been inbreeding for as long as the concept of royalty has existed.)\n\nI think if the Queen had had her way, none of her children would have been allowed to marry any of the people they did. Ok, well, MAYBE Diana. ...MAYBE.
302890
My cousin did our genealogy and discovered our family descended from English royalty. I don't know his name, I was young and was kind of ho-hum about it at the time but other family members were real excited about it. Sorry, no link.
1039827
Are you talking about THE ROYAL FAMILY?\n\nAlso, is it the Brittish or some other one?\n\nIf it was the Brittish family, I really don't know the answer. But I was thinking about Diana the other day, I think because I love weddings and someone mentioned her wedding for some reason. I wonder if anyone knows about a video with her wedding.
652927
yes.  Depending on the country you are interesred in, the royals have studiously compiled geneological tables, pedigrees, if you will.  In England, Debreet's; Germany, Almanac de Gotha; Spain, something medieval sounding;  also,  Italy, Russia, and what was once Catholic Hambsburg Austria do not correspond to the title prepecedence of contemporary England.  For example, a Russian Arch-Duke will out-rank an Italian Prince, it's more semantical/translative in nature than hierachical.   But then Queen Victoria did allow herself to become Empress of India before her daughter was crowned Empress of Prussia.  One could surmise she wanted to ride in the first coach,first.   But, yes the royality of Europe, irrespective of position is well documented and easily located on the web.
996382
i never heard of that.  but i assume it is a little one that stands behind the bride and holds her train.  i don't think they do that anymore.  check out footage of the royal wedding.  They are uber traditional, and would def. have any of that kind of stuff.
1132102
When the monarch dies or abdicates, the crown passes to the next in line.\nIf the outgoing monarch has one, the first in line is the eldest son (so Prince Charles is currently first in line), or the eldest son of the eldest son (Prince William is second in line).\nWhen the previous King died in 1952, he had no sons. First in line was his eldest daughter, Princess Elizabeth, so she became Queen Elizabeth II.\n\nBecause sons have priority over daughters, there have been more Kings as monarch than Queens.\nHowever, the wife of a King is also called a Queen, whereas the husband of a Queen is not called a King, but a Prince-Consort.\nHence Elizabeth II is Queen, and Phillip is Prince-Consort.
30460
The people who are consider royality or in the upper class lived in castles, and have servants. They wear bright colors to show that they are rich, and they also wear jewlers.(which is not to common for lower class people. They would have tutors come to their castle, and they will have dancing class, and others...... And of course, you wouldn't have to do any work, cause u got servants..