What would you make of the Windsors?
the first Windsor was George V and his father was most certainly born and raised in the UK. So that would make them a native dynasty.
Why would only the father count? If you inherit the throne from or through your mother would not that line take precedence? It's the Royal line after al.
So for Sweden you could suggest that until the death of Gustav V the dynasty was foreign but became native when his son and heir to the Houses of Holstein-Gottorp and Wasa succeeded as Gustav VI Adolf.
What about the Norwegians. The Glucksborgs are German dynasty but Harald through his mother also traces his line to the previous dynasties does that mean the house became native?
The fact that in France and in major parts of Germany a pure male line of succession was followed does not mean this is how it went everywhere.
Are you less a child of your mother than you are of your father?
If you talk about a non-native dynasty i suggest you could say that of George I of the Hellenes. When a Greek prince of German descendant is invited to become the king in Greece you cannot speak of a native dynasty. But many of his grandchildren were born in Greece of a parent born in Greece. Why would they not be considered native?
I guess Forrest meant that the founder of the dynasty would have been born in the country where he eventually would reign.
And then, only YU, Albania and Montenegro would fit.
The Romanovs would fit up to the Holstein-Gottorp marriage.
The Hohenzollerns are native of what we call today Germany, but they are native from the south, nowadays Wurttemberg and settled north in Brandenburg.
The Grimaldis conquered the "rock" and always reigned there afterwards, but there were the two hic-ups with the Goyon de Matignon and Polignac, who broke the line.
French maréchal Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte was adopted by the last (of german origin) Holstein-Gottorp king so definitely the dynasty he started was not native from Sweden.
Define native and be aware that is a very difficult term to use.
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