Basically all hereditary reigning European monarchs have ancestry all over Europe. From the Rurik dynasty of Russia and Kiev to Hugo Capet and Charlemagne, the old Saxon kings of England and the various Iberian dynasties as well as lines to various Byzantine emperors and ruling houses in what is now Germany or Italy. Don't forget the Polish, Lithuanian or Bohemian lines either.
So you could move Felipe VI of Spain to Norway and he'd have an ancestor from that country. Does that make him a native king? Is Harald V a more native ruler?
Carl XVI Gustav of Sweden is a male line Bernadotte but he is also the heir of Gustav IV from the previous Holstein-Gottorp dynasty who were linked to the Vasa dynasty. Does that make the Bernadottes a native dynasty?
Christian IX of Denmark was born a German prince of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksborg just like his wife (a born princess of Hesse-Kassel) who had closer ties to the reigning Danish dynasty. Yet they do have ancestry going back to the early Danish kings.
The Orange-Nassau dynasty had lived in the Netherlands for a few centuries before they became sovereigns in 1814 so yes that could be considered native but the Nassau line stems from Germany and Orange is in present day France. However they do descent from the ancient kings of Frisia.
Among the active reigning dynasties in Europe today, are the Dutch and Danish royal houses the only native ones today? All the others being of "foreign" extraction.
« Back to index