You are right about the current royal family in Britain being a German family. The family is of German descent-—descended from George I of the House of Hanover. The dynasty was known as the Hanoverian dynasty until Victoria married Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. English monarchs serving after that (descendants of Victoria and Albert) were known as Saxe-Coburg-Gotha until World War I. During WWI, the family changed its name to Windsor.
As for the Norman-French dynasty, you must be referring to the Stuart family, which was from Scotland. The first monarch of the Stuart family to rule England was James I and the last Stuart monarch in England was Anne. The native English ruler, therefore, was Elizabeth I of the Tudor family, which was a native English family. She was the last ruler from that dynasty, because she had no heirs (since she never married) and the rest of Henry VIII’s children had no heirs either. As for the idea of usurping the throne from a native English ruler, James I, a native of Scotland and a member of the Stuart family, became king after Elizabeth I died. His family did not usurp the throne. Of course, James I’s mother, Mary Queen of Scots, tried to usurp the throne, but Elizabeth I, who was her cousin, had her imprisoned and later executed. But you are right about the current family being of German descent. It is ironic that a family of German descent is the symbol of Britain. Frankly, I wish that Elizabeth I had married and had children and possibly therefore grandchildren, etc. Then Britain would still have an English family on the throne. The Tudor family would still be the symbol of Britain if that happened, and that family would be a real symbol of Britain, just as it was under Elizabeth I. If I were a betting man, which I am not, I would bet you a dollar that if the Tudor family ruled England today, the Muslim terrorists living in Britain wouldn’t be there now. In fact, there wouldn’t be any Muslims there at all if the Tudor family still ruled England. As for the panty-waist Archbishop of Canterbury, the Tudor rulers wouldn’t have put up with him, either. He would not have been appointed in the first place.
Some symbol of Britain the current royal family is. I would like to say to them, “Begone, and let an English family with more backbone and more morals take the throne.”
( . . . what odds they would have appointed the Archdruid because he was Archbishop of Wales???? )
/ just kidding.
You have a very good point, but as long as we're wishing, how about if Richard the Lionheart had managed to have a good crop of descendants, and England still had the Plantagenets in charge?
Ironically, England annexed Wales on the watch of Tudor King Henry VIII, just as England and Scotland were united in 1603 (the thrones) and 1707 (the parliaments) under the Stewarts.
BTW, as I understand it, the Stewarts were Anglo-Scots rather than Gaels (the Angles had been in Scotland every bit as long as the Gaelic Scots had, if not longer).