Discussion:
The Real British Monarch
(too old to reply)
Gordon Davie
2004-01-03 21:44:28 UTC
Permalink
Just watched a fascinating TV programme presented by Tony Robinson (better
known perhaps as 'Baldrick' in the Blackadder series). While researching for
a previous programme on the murder of the Princes in the Tower, Robinson
came across strong evidence that Edward IV of England was illegitimate
(counting back from his date of birth, he must have been conceived in the
middle of a five-week period when his supposed father Richard, Duke of York,
was fighting in France).

If this is true, then Edward was ineligible for the throne and on his
father's death the crown should have gone to his younger brother George.
Robinson traced George's family line to find out who would now be on the
English throne if this had been known at the time. He ended up with a man
called Michael Hastings, the Earl of Loudon, now living in Australia, who
would have become King Michael I in 2002 on the death of his mother, Queen
Barbara.

Robinson also pointed out that since the Union of the Crowns came about
because Elizabeth I died childless, Scotland would still be an independent
country and, with no House of Hanover, the present Queen would be living
modestly in Germany!

Check out
http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/heads/footnotes/monarch
.html
for more details, including a complete family tree!
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland

"Slipped the surly bonds of Earth...to touch the face of God"
Richard Gadsden
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
In article <bt7d3s$l08$***@sparta.btinternet.com> on Sat, 3 Jan 2004
21:44:28 +0000 (UTC), ***@btinternet.com (Gordon Davie) wrote:

> Robinson also pointed out that since the Union of the Crowns came about
> because Elizabeth I died childless, Scotland would still be an
> independent country and, with no House of Hanover, the present Queen
> would be living modestly in Germany!

Certainly the convulsions of the later Stuarts would have been interesting
in an independent Scotland. Without the Act of Succession, the rightful
King of Scotland is Archduke Francis II of Bavaria, but as long as there's
John Knox, the chances of a Catholic King of Scotland have to be pretty
slim - which suggests that Elizabeth might be Elizabeth I of Scotland, as
the Hanoverians remain the only available Protestant line in 1707.

--
Richard Gadsden
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it" - Attributed to Voltaire
Graham Truesdale
2004-01-03 23:59:39 UTC
Permalink
Gordon Davie <***@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bt7d3s$l08$***@sparta.btinternet.com...
> Just watched a fascinating TV programme presented by Tony Robinson (better
> known perhaps as 'Baldrick' in the Blackadder series). While researching
for
> a previous programme on the murder of the Princes in the Tower, Robinson
> came across strong evidence that Edward IV of England was illegitimate
> (counting back from his date of birth, he must have been conceived in the
> middle of a five-week period when his supposed father Richard, Duke of
York,
> was fighting in France).
>
> If this is true, then Edward was ineligible for the throne and on his
> father's death the crown should have gone to his younger brother George.
> Robinson traced George's family line to find out who would now be on the
> English throne if this had been known at the time. He ended up with a man
> called Michael Hastings, the Earl of Loudon, now living in Australia, who
> would have become King Michael I in 2002 on the death of his mother, Queen
> Barbara.
>
> Robinson also pointed out that since the Union of the Crowns came about
> because Elizabeth I died childless, Scotland would still be an independent
> country and, with no House of Hanover, the present Queen would be living
> modestly in Germany!
>
> Check out
>
http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/heads/footnotes/monarch
> .html
> for more details, including a complete family tree!
> --
The statement that Elizabeth II is not the heiress of Richard Duke of York
is nothing new. None of the monarchs since 1689 have been his heir[ess].
They have reigned by virtue of the Glorious Revolution, and the Bill of
Rights
and Act of Settlement passed after it. The question of who is the heir of
any royal pre-1689 is relevant only to Jacobites.

Quite apart from the issue of Henry VII taking the crown off a bush at
Bosworth
and putting it on *before* he married Edward IV's daughter.
--
"The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and
questions him." Proverbs 18:17
Don Aitken
2004-01-04 02:08:37 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 23:59:39 +0000 (UTC), "Graham Truesdale"
<***@virgin.nospam.net> wrote:

>Gordon Davie <***@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>news:bt7d3s$l08$***@sparta.btinternet.com...
>> Just watched a fascinating TV programme presented by Tony Robinson (better
>> known perhaps as 'Baldrick' in the Blackadder series). While researching
>for
>> a previous programme on the murder of the Princes in the Tower, Robinson
>> came across strong evidence that Edward IV of England was illegitimate
>> (counting back from his date of birth, he must have been conceived in the
>> middle of a five-week period when his supposed father Richard, Duke of
>York,
>> was fighting in France).
>>
>> If this is true, then Edward was ineligible for the throne and on his
>> father's death the crown should have gone to his younger brother George.
>> Robinson traced George's family line to find out who would now be on the
>> English throne if this had been known at the time. He ended up with a man
>> called Michael Hastings, the Earl of Loudon, now living in Australia, who
>> would have become King Michael I in 2002 on the death of his mother, Queen
>> Barbara.
>>
>> Robinson also pointed out that since the Union of the Crowns came about
>> because Elizabeth I died childless, Scotland would still be an independent
>> country and, with no House of Hanover, the present Queen would be living
>> modestly in Germany!
>>
>> Check out
>>
>http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/heads/footnotes/monarch.html
>> for more details, including a complete family tree!

>The statement that Elizabeth II is not the heiress of Richard Duke of York
>is nothing new. None of the monarchs since 1689 have been his heir[ess].
>They have reigned by virtue of the Glorious Revolution, and the Bill of
>Rights and Act of Settlement passed after it. The question of who is the
>heir of any royal pre-1689 is relevant only to Jacobites.
>
>Quite apart from the issue of Henry VII taking the crown off a bush at
>Bosworth and putting it on *before* he married Edward IV's daughter.

And having his title confirmed by Parliament. I won't even mention the
Clarence attainder (Oh dear, I seem to have mentioned it).

Nobody believed in 1483 that the English crown passed to the
"legitimate" heir no matter what, and no-one believes it now (apart
from credulous TV presenters). The idea merely had a brief vogue in
the 17th century, and has been allowed to override statute law exactly
once, in 1603.

--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
Coreleus Corneleus
2004-01-04 19:16:47 UTC
Permalink
Don Aitken <don-***@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:<***@4ax.com>...
> On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 23:59:39 +0000 (UTC), "Graham Truesdale"
> <***@virgin.nospam.net> wrote:
>
> >Gordon Davie <***@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> >news:bt7d3s$l08$***@sparta.btinternet.com...

>
> Nobody believed in 1483 that the English crown passed to the
> "legitimate" heir no matter what, and no-one believes it now (apart
> from credulous TV presenters). The idea merely had a brief vogue in
> the 17th century, and has been allowed to override statute law exactly
> once, in 1603.

What about king Arthur and the 'sword in the stone'?

(I don't know, maybe I have that one wrong, and perhaps that one was earlier.)
Don Aitken
2004-01-04 23:52:24 UTC
Permalink
On 4 Jan 2004 11:16:47 -0800, ***@yahoo.com (Coreleus Corneleus)
wrote:

>Don Aitken <don-***@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:<***@4ax.com>...
>> On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 23:59:39 +0000 (UTC), "Graham Truesdale"
>> <***@virgin.nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Gordon Davie <***@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> >news:bt7d3s$l08$***@sparta.btinternet.com...
>
>>
>> Nobody believed in 1483 that the English crown passed to the
>> "legitimate" heir no matter what, and no-one believes it now (apart
>> from credulous TV presenters). The idea merely had a brief vogue in
>> the 17th century, and has been allowed to override statute law exactly
>> once, in 1603.
>
>What about king Arthur and the 'sword in the stone'?
>
>(I don't know, maybe I have that one wrong, and perhaps that one was earlier.)

The only slight difficulty with Arthur is that he probably didn't
exist, and if he did he probably wasn't a king, and if he was he
certainly wasn't a king of England.

--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
Lyn David Thomas
2004-01-05 22:54:23 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 23:52:24 +0000, Don Aitken wrote:

>>> Nobody believed in 1483 that the English crown passed to the
>>> "legitimate" heir no matter what, and no-one believes it now (apart
>>> from credulous TV presenters). The idea merely had a brief vogue in
>>> the 17th century, and has been allowed to override statute law exactly
>>> once, in 1603.
>>
>>What about king Arthur and the 'sword in the stone'?
>>
>>(I don't know, maybe I have that one wrong, and perhaps that one was earlier.)
>
> The only slight difficulty with Arthur is that he probably didn't
> exist, and if he did he probably wasn't a king, and if he was he
> certainly wasn't a king of England.

Indeed, and if he did exist the people he was fighting against were the
people who would become the English.

Any idea exactly when the sword in the stone bit was tagged onto the
Arthur myth?

Incidentally the monarchy is techincally elective, being confered on the
chosen candidate by the Acession council, from a choice of people layed
down by statute.

In short the crown is the gift of parliament.

--
Lyn David Thomas
George C. Ford
2004-01-06 03:24:55 UTC
Permalink
Lyn David Thomas wrote:

> On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 23:52:24 +0000, Don Aitken wrote:
>
> >>> Nobody believed in 1483 that the English crown passed to the
> >>> "legitimate" heir no matter what, and no-one believes it now (apart
> >>> from credulous TV presenters). The idea merely had a brief vogue in
> >>> the 17th century, and has been allowed to override statute law exactly
> >>> once, in 1603.
> >>
> >>What about king Arthur and the 'sword in the stone'?
> >>
> >>(I don't know, maybe I have that one wrong, and perhaps that one was earlier.)
> >
> > The only slight difficulty with Arthur is that he probably didn't
> > exist, and if he did he probably wasn't a king, and if he was he
> > certainly wasn't a king of England.
>
> Indeed, and if he did exist the people he was fighting against were the
> people who would become the English.
>
> Any idea exactly when the sword in the stone bit was tagged onto the
> Arthur myth?
>
> Incidentally the monarchy is techincally elective, being confered on the
> chosen candidate by the Acession council, from a choice of people layed
> down by statute.
>
> In short the crown is the gift of parliament.

Gee, is that how King John got his crown?

>
>
> --
> Lyn David Thomas
AlanWilliams
2004-01-06 04:57:46 UTC
Permalink
"George C. Ford" <***@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:***@neo.rr.com...
>
>
> Lyn David Thomas wrote:

[snip]

> > In short the crown is the gift of parliament.
>
> Gee, is that how King John got his crown?

In ye olden terms, yes. John was not the primogenitive heir, that was
Arthur of Brittany followed by Arthur's sister. John managed to get the
crown because his followers persuaded a load of barons meeting in
Northampton to say that John was it. It's not that different to the way
that William II took the crown rather than his older brother.

> > --
> > Lyn David Thomas

Alan
Stan Brown
2004-01-06 04:52:44 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@cibwr.freeserve.co.uk> in
alt.talk.royalty, "Lyn David Thomas" wrote:
>Incidentally the monarchy is techincally elective, being confered on the
>chosen candidate by the Acession council, from a choice of people layed
>down by statute.

You're talking about the United Kingdom in our time line, right? I
snipped quite a bit from your article but saw nothing to indicate
otherwise. In that case--

If by "a choice of people" you mean "the one unique individual",
then you're correct.

The Accession Council is purely formal and has no role in choosing a
monarch, neither a real role nor even a theoretical role. in UK law
there is never a moment when there is no monarch. As soon as the
King or Queen Regnant dies, the next heir under the Act of
Settlement automatically becomes the monarch.

See the first URL in my sig.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page: http://users.uniserve.com/~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
Louis Epstein
2004-01-06 18:34:01 UTC
Permalink
In alt.talk.royalty Lyn David Thomas <***@cibwr.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
: On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 23:52:24 +0000, Don Aitken wrote:

:>>> Nobody believed in 1483 that the English crown passed to the
:>>> "legitimate" heir no matter what, and no-one believes it now (apart
:>>> from credulous TV presenters). The idea merely had a brief vogue in
:>>> the 17th century, and has been allowed to override statute law exactly
:>>> once, in 1603.
:>>
:>>What about king Arthur and the 'sword in the stone'?
:>>
:>>(I don't know, maybe I have that one wrong, and perhaps that one was earlier.)
:>
:> The only slight difficulty with Arthur is that he probably didn't
:> exist, and if he did he probably wasn't a king, and if he was he
:> certainly wasn't a king of England.

: Indeed, and if he did exist the people he was fighting against were the
: people who would become the English.

: Any idea exactly when the sword in the stone bit was tagged onto the
: Arthur myth?

: Incidentally the monarchy is techincally elective, being confered on the
: chosen candidate by the Acession council, from a choice of people layed
: down by statute.

The Accession Council acclaims the person it is required to
acclaim,and acknowledges in its proclamation that that person
has already acceded.They have no power to bestow.

: In short the crown is the gift of parliament.

The existence of a Parliament is a matter at
the inalienably-sole discretion of the Monarch.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Louis Epstein
2004-01-04 02:36:51 UTC
Permalink
In alt.talk.royalty Graham Truesdale <***@virgin.nospam.net> wrote:
: Gordon Davie <***@btinternet.com> wrote in message
: news:bt7d3s$l08$***@sparta.btinternet.com...
:> Just watched a fascinating TV programme presented by Tony Robinson (better
:> known perhaps as 'Baldrick' in the Blackadder series). While researching
:> for a previous programme on the murder of the Princes in the Tower, Robinson
:> came across strong evidence that Edward IV of England was illegitimate
:> (counting back from his date of birth, he must have been conceived in the
:> middle of a five-week period when his supposed father Richard, Duke of
:> York, was fighting in France).
:>
:> If this is true, then Edward was ineligible for the throne and on his
:> father's death the crown should have gone to his younger brother George.
:> Robinson traced George's family line to find out who would now be on the
:> English throne if this had been known at the time. He ended up with a man
:> called Michael Hastings, the Earl of Loudon, now living in Australia, who
:> would have become King Michael I in 2002 on the death of his mother, Queen
:> Barbara.
:>
:> Robinson also pointed out that since the Union of the Crowns came about
:> because Elizabeth I died childless, Scotland would still be an independent
:> country and, with no House of Hanover, the present Queen would be living
:> modestly in Germany!
:>
:> Check out
:>
: http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/heads/footnotes/monarch
:> .html
:> for more details, including a complete family tree!
:>
: The statement that Elizabeth II is not the heiress of Richard Duke of York
: is nothing new. None of the monarchs since 1689 have been his heir[ess].
: They have reigned by virtue of the Glorious Revolution, and the Bill of
: Rights
: and Act of Settlement passed after it. The question of who is the heir of
: any royal pre-1689 is relevant only to Jacobites.

Once again...while Edward IV was legitimate in law,
regardless of imputations,the validity of the "Glorious
Revolution" IS undermined by any indication that the
Parliament involved was an illegitimate body.

: Quite apart from the issue of Henry VII taking the crown off a bush at
: Bosworth and putting it on *before* he married Edward IV's daughter.

As ever,one must defer to the Mandate of Heaven,which can pass
by force of arms...NOT any enactment by a Parliament.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Graham Truesdale
2004-01-04 14:33:44 UTC
Permalink
Louis Epstein <***@PUF.FCC.NET> wrote in message
news:E42dne79e7be4WqiRVn-***@fcc.net...
> In alt.talk.royalty Graham Truesdale <***@virgin.nospam.net>
wrote:
> : The statement that Elizabeth II is not the heiress of Richard Duke of
York
> : is nothing new. None of the monarchs since 1689 have been his
heir[ess].
> : They have reigned by virtue of the Glorious Revolution, and the Bill of
> : Rights
> : and Act of Settlement passed after it. The question of who is the heir
of
> : any royal pre-1689 is relevant only to Jacobites.
>
> Once again...while Edward IV was legitimate in law,
> regardless of imputations,the validity of the "Glorious
> Revolution" IS undermined by any indication that the
> Parliament involved was an illegitimate body.
>
> : Quite apart from the issue of Henry VII taking the crown off a bush at
> : Bosworth and putting it on *before* he married Edward IV's daughter.
>
> As ever,one must defer to the Mandate of Heaven,which can pass
> by force of arms...NOT any enactment by a Parliament.
>
If Parliament's enactments are irrelevant, why should its hypothetical
illegitimacy undermine the Glorious Revolution?

And if I had a pound for every time you have failed to specify exactly how,
when and where Williamandmary acquired the Crown 'by force of arms',
I would be rich enough to buy myself a crown from one of the peddlers
of fake titles on the net.
--
"The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and
questions him." Proverbs 18:17
Coreleus Corneleus
2004-01-04 19:10:35 UTC
Permalink
> > As ever,one must defer to the Mandate of Heaven,which can pass
> > by force of arms...NOT any enactment by a Parliament.
> >
> If Parliament's enactments are irrelevant, why should its hypothetical
> illegitimacy undermine the Glorious Revolution?
>

I think that it is probably somewhat reasonable to say that Parliament
did obtain somewhat greater power and legitimacy in its own right,
dating from the time of Cromwell.

Perhaps that is somewhat of a foul reference to use when you consider
Charles I (not the other Charles of Spain I was referencing a few days
ago), but on the other hand, if one were to consider the Long
Parliament to be a legitimate ruler of England without a technical
king, then at the same time, that same legitimacy might be used to
confer upon it, the power to choose whatever king that it wishes,
regardless of the descent or ancestry of the particular person upon
whom it would confer the title.

By tradition, of course, it would probably confer it upon whoever was
actually in line to be king. Nonetheless, it would have the power to
exclude (based upon religious, or other requirements).

If the Long Parliament of Cromwell were legitimate, then the monarchy
would still be legitimate, regardless of its actual ancestry.

I don't know, maybe the reasoning it totally convoluted in relation to
the actual phenomenon involved.

The truth of the matter is, that the phenomenon involved, is mostly
traditional, and so technical distinctions on the subject are probably
meaningless anyway.
Louis Epstein
2004-01-05 03:55:53 UTC
Permalink
In alt.talk.royalty Coreleus Corneleus <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
:> > As ever,one must defer to the Mandate of Heaven,which can pass
:> > by force of arms...NOT any enactment by a Parliament.
:> >
:> If Parliament's enactments are irrelevant, why should its hypothetical
:> illegitimacy undermine the Glorious Revolution?
:>

: I think that it is probably somewhat reasonable to say that Parliament
: did obtain somewhat greater power and legitimacy in its own right,
: dating from the time of Cromwell.

: Perhaps that is somewhat of a foul reference to use when you consider
: Charles I (not the other Charles of Spain I was referencing a few days
: ago), but on the other hand, if one were to consider the Long
: Parliament to be a legitimate ruler of England without a technical
: king, then at the same time, that same legitimacy might be used to
: confer upon it, the power to choose whatever king that it wishes,
: regardless of the descent or ancestry of the particular person upon
: whom it would confer the title.

: By tradition, of course, it would probably confer it upon whoever was
: actually in line to be king. Nonetheless, it would have the power to
: exclude (based upon religious, or other requirements).

: If the Long Parliament of Cromwell were legitimate, then the monarchy
: would still be legitimate, regardless of its actual ancestry.

Monarchy is legitimate by divine fiat that no
parliament is capable of possessing a right to
make any decisions about.

WHO is the Monarch,again Parliament is responsible
for being loyal to the right person and not for
deciding who that is.

* * *
Contrary to the "hlg" post that is not on a.t.r,
Henry IV (Bolingbroke) was NOT a descendant of
John of Gaunt's third marriage to Catherine Roet,
but of his first to the heiress of Lancaster.
Only Henry VII and his line came from the third
marriage.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Coreleus Corneleus
2004-01-05 07:37:16 UTC
Permalink
Louis Epstein <***@PUF.FCC.NET> wrote in message news:<VKSdnfPoqaXUfWWiRVn-***@fcc.net>...
> In alt.talk.royalty Coreleus Corneleus <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> : then the monarchy
> : would still be legitimate, regardless of its actual ancestry.
>

> Monarchy is legitimate by divine fiat that no
> parliament is capable of possessing a right to
> make any decisions about.
>
> WHO is the Monarch,again Parliament is responsible
> for being loyal to the right person and not for
> deciding who that is.

That view seems kind of strange. I thought that was what the Glorious
Revolution was supposed to have been about to begin with. (Under the
very limited circumstances under which the question arose.)

Personally, I tend to like the ideas of referendum and direct voting
on a wide array of issues.

Still, it seems kind of strange that in a world where you have
dictators running all over the place with constitutions, legislatures,
elections and the like (often with one party rule), going through all
of the trouble to say 'we are democratic', it seems strange that
anyone would start talking about Parliament as being a worthless and
peripheral body in the present day.

Well, if you want to overturn the 'Glorious Revolution', find some
relative of Bonnie Prince Charles somewhere, dress him in purple robes
and parade him outside of Buckingham palace, I guess you can go ahead
and do so. Stranger things have been done.
Louis Epstein
2004-01-05 22:42:21 UTC
Permalink
In alt.talk.royalty Coreleus Corneleus <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
: Louis Epstein wrote in message news:<VKSdnfPoqaXUfWWiRVn-***@fcc.net>...
:> In alt.talk.royalty Coreleus Corneleus <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
:> : then the monarchy
:> : would still be legitimate, regardless of its actual ancestry.
:>

:> Monarchy is legitimate by divine fiat that no
:> parliament is capable of possessing a right to
:> make any decisions about.
:>
:> WHO is the Monarch,again Parliament is responsible
:> for being loyal to the right person and not for
:> deciding who that is.

: That view seems kind of strange. I thought that was what the Glorious
: Revolution was supposed to have been about to begin with. (Under the
: very limited circumstances under which the question arose.)

: Personally, I tend to like the ideas of referendum and direct voting
: on a wide array of issues.

: Still, it seems kind of strange that in a world where you have
: dictators running all over the place with constitutions, legislatures,
: elections and the like (often with one party rule), going through all
: of the trouble to say 'we are democratic', it seems strange that
: anyone would start talking about Parliament as being a worthless and
: peripheral body in the present day.

: Well, if you want to overturn the 'Glorious Revolution', find some
: relative of Bonnie Prince Charles somewhere, dress him in purple robes
: and parade him outside of Buckingham palace, I guess you can go ahead
: and do so. Stranger things have been done.

I am NOT a Jacobite,but a divine-right monarchist.
I recognize that thrones can pass by conquest
(deny William III,then why not deny William I?)
but deny the possibility,no matter what any
constitution,or indeed any demolatrous Monarch,
may ever say,of the inherently absolute nature
of a Monarch's powers changing.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
marc_ch
2004-01-05 22:19:03 UTC
Permalink
In article <VKSdnfPoqaXUfWWiRVn-***@fcc.net> ***@PUF.FCC.NET wrote...

> Monarchy is legitimate by divine fiat that no
> parliament is capable of possessing a right to
> make any decisions about.

Yeah. Sure. Whatever.

No matter what bubble-headed bile you froth, parliaments the world over
have consistently made these decisions. So much for your 'divine fiat'
that nothing happens back at them.

> The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
> at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

Oh well. Terror has triumphed.

marc
Peter Tilman
2004-01-06 13:14:56 UTC
Permalink
"marc_ch" <***@crumhorn.uk> wrote in message
news:CheetahPRO_v1.16-***@crumhorn.uk...
> In article <VKSdnfPoqaXUfWWiRVn-***@fcc.net> ***@PUF.FCC.NET wrote...
> > The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
> > at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
>
> Oh well. Terror has triumphed.

Aren't they building a new World Trade Center which will be higher than the
old one?
Louis Epstein
2004-01-06 18:31:12 UTC
Permalink
In alt.talk.royalty Peter Tilman <***@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
: "marc_ch" <***@crumhorn.uk> wrote in message
: news:CheetahPRO_v1.16-***@crumhorn.uk...
:> In article <VKSdnfPoqaXUfWWiRVn-***@fcc.net> ***@PUF.FCC.NET wrote...
:> > The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
:> > at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
:>
:> Oh well. Terror has triumphed.

: Aren't they building a new World Trade Center which will be higher than the
: old one?

They are proposing to build a disgrace that
fraudulently represents itself as higher than
the old when the roof and occupied human space
within are hundreds of feet lower.

I am and have been a leading activist against
the unconscionable official planning process.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
marc_ch
2004-01-06 22:01:35 UTC
Permalink
In article <AIWdnUCHB75tY2eiRVn-***@fcc.net> ***@PUF.FCC.NET wrote...

> I am and have been a leading activist against
> the unconscionable official planning process.

Unfortunately, you're also a leading wacko.

marc
jlk7e
2004-01-06 02:46:25 UTC
Permalink
"Graham Truesdale" <***@virgin.nospam.net> wrote in message news:<bt9887$pf5$***@sparta.btinternet.com>...
> Louis Epstein <***@PUF.FCC.NET> wrote in message
> news:E42dne79e7be4WqiRVn-***@fcc.net...
> > In alt.talk.royalty Graham Truesdale <***@virgin.nospam.net>
> wrote:
> > : The statement that Elizabeth II is not the heiress of Richard Duke of
> York
> > : is nothing new. None of the monarchs since 1689 have been his
> heir[ess].
> > : They have reigned by virtue of the Glorious Revolution, and the Bill of
> > : Rights
> > : and Act of Settlement passed after it. The question of who is the heir
> of
> > : any royal pre-1689 is relevant only to Jacobites.
> >
> > Once again...while Edward IV was legitimate in law,
> > regardless of imputations,the validity of the "Glorious
> > Revolution" IS undermined by any indication that the
> > Parliament involved was an illegitimate body.
> >
> > : Quite apart from the issue of Henry VII taking the crown off a bush at
> > : Bosworth and putting it on *before* he married Edward IV's daughter.
> >
> > As ever,one must defer to the Mandate of Heaven,which can pass
> > by force of arms...NOT any enactment by a Parliament.
> >
> If Parliament's enactments are irrelevant, why should its hypothetical
> illegitimacy undermine the Glorious Revolution?
>
> And if I had a pound for every time you have failed to specify exactly how,
> when and where Williamandmary acquired the Crown 'by force of arms',
> I would be rich enough to buy myself a crown from one of the peddlers
> of fake titles on the net.

Well, William invaded England, and James fled without a fight. I
think that could be interpreted without too many contortions as the
"mandate of heaven", if one is so inclined.
Gillian White
2004-01-06 03:04:31 UTC
Permalink
"jlk7e" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
news:***@posting.google.com...

> Well, William invaded England, and James fled without a fight. I
> think that could be interpreted without too many contortions as the
> "mandate of heaven", if one is so inclined.

Am I allowed to ask what this 'mandate of heaven' business is, or will that
open a whole 'nother can of worms?

Gillian
Kelly
2004-01-06 03:18:08 UTC
Permalink
"Gillian White" wrote ...
> "jlk7e" wrote ...
>
> > Well, William invaded England, and James fled without a fight. I
> > think that could be interpreted without too many contortions as the
> > "mandate of heaven", if one is so inclined.
>
> Am I allowed to ask what this 'mandate of heaven' business is, or will
that
> open a whole 'nother can of worms?
>
> Gillian

I'm drawing on history lessons from college here, but here goes. You hold
the throne by the "Mandate of Heaven". Basically, the Lord (or whatever
Higher power you choose), allows a certain family to rule as long as they
keep him/her/it happy. If He/She/It becomes unhappy, the family loses the
MoH, and with it, the throne. The MoH thing was used in China to explain the
rise and fall of their dynasties.

Kelly
--
What we see depends mainly on what we look for.
jlk7e
2004-01-06 18:37:13 UTC
Permalink
"Gillian White" <***@mail.com> wrote in message news:<3BpKb.972752$***@pd7tw2no>...
> "jlk7e" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
> news:***@posting.google.com...
>
> > Well, William invaded England, and James fled without a fight. I
> > think that could be interpreted without too many contortions as the
> > "mandate of heaven", if one is so inclined.
>
> Am I allowed to ask what this 'mandate of heaven' business is, or will that
> open a whole 'nother can of worms?

Has to do with Mr. Epstein's odd views on, er, the nature of
government. He's big on divine right of kings, but is also not a
legitimist - he tends to recognize de facto monarchs (except the
Yorks, for some reason - he's a dyed in the wool Lancastrian, despite
Edward IV's rather clear attainment of the Mandate of Heaven). His
basis for this is that the Mandate of Heaven is transferred on the
battlefield. People've been needling him for a while on apparent
contradictions in his views, but he generally doesn't provide much
useful help...
Ivan Hodes
2004-01-09 14:01:27 UTC
Permalink
***@juno.com (jlk7e) wrote in message news:<***@posting.google.com>...
> "Gillian White" <***@mail.com> wrote in message news:<3BpKb.972752$***@pd7tw2no>...
> > "jlk7e" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
> > news:***@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > Well, William invaded England, and James fled without a fight. I
> > > think that could be interpreted without too many contortions as the
> > > "mandate of heaven", if one is so inclined.
> >
> > Am I allowed to ask what this 'mandate of heaven' business is, or will that
> > open a whole 'nother can of worms?
>
> Has to do with Mr. Epstein's odd views on, er, the nature of
> government. He's big on divine right of kings, but is also not a
> legitimist - he tends to recognize de facto monarchs (except the
> Yorks, for some reason - he's a dyed in the wool Lancastrian, despite
> Edward IV's rather clear attainment of the Mandate of Heaven). His
> basis for this is that the Mandate of Heaven is transferred on the
> battlefield. People've been needling him for a while on apparent
> contradictions in his views, but he generally doesn't provide much
> useful help...

Personally, I find it puzzling that he calls it "mandate of heaven,"
which is cribbed from Imperial China, where the legitimacy thing was
quite different.

ObWI: famines and natural disasters taken as signs of dynastic loss of
legitimacy in Western Europe. Well, more so.

Ivan Hodes
jlk7e
2004-01-10 02:36:10 UTC
Permalink
***@yahoo.com (Ivan Hodes) wrote in message news:<***@posting.google.com>...
> ***@juno.com (jlk7e) wrote in message news:<***@posting.google.com>...
> > "Gillian White" <***@mail.com> wrote in message news:<3BpKb.972752$***@pd7tw2no>...
> > > "jlk7e" <***@juno.com> wrote in message
> > > news:***@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > > Well, William invaded England, and James fled without a fight. I
> > > > think that could be interpreted without too many contortions as the
> > > > "mandate of heaven", if one is so inclined.
> > >
> > > Am I allowed to ask what this 'mandate of heaven' business is, or will that
> > > open a whole 'nother can of worms?
> >
> > Has to do with Mr. Epstein's odd views on, er, the nature of
> > government. He's big on divine right of kings, but is also not a
> > legitimist - he tends to recognize de facto monarchs (except the
> > Yorks, for some reason - he's a dyed in the wool Lancastrian, despite
> > Edward IV's rather clear attainment of the Mandate of Heaven). His
> > basis for this is that the Mandate of Heaven is transferred on the
> > battlefield. People've been needling him for a while on apparent
> > contradictions in his views, but he generally doesn't provide much
> > useful help...
>
> Personally, I find it puzzling that he calls it "mandate of heaven,"
> which is cribbed from Imperial China, where the legitimacy thing was
> quite different.

Yeah, Epstein's a peculiar fellow. I think what he's really talking
about is "right by conquest," I think.

> ObWI: famines and natural disasters taken as signs of dynastic loss of
> legitimacy in Western Europe. Well, more so.

Hmm...Europe without the firm dynastic principle would be quite a
different place, wouldn't it?
A Tsar Is Born
2004-01-04 23:43:02 UTC
Permalink
"Louis Epstein" <***@PUF.FCC.NET> wrote in message
news:E42dne79e7be4WqiRVn-***@fcc.net...
> Once again...while Edward IV was legitimate in law,
> regardless of imputations,the validity of the "Glorious
> Revolution" IS undermined by any indication that the
> Parliament involved was an illegitimate body.
>
> : Quite apart from the issue of Henry VII taking the crown off a bush at
> : Bosworth and putting it on *before* he married Edward IV's daughter.
>
> As ever,one must defer to the Mandate of Heaven,which can pass
> by force of arms...NOT any enactment by a Parliament.

So you accept William III's legitimacy after the Battle of the Boyne (July
12, 1690) but not before?

Jean Coeur de Lapin
Graham Truesdale
2004-01-10 21:18:39 UTC
Permalink
A Tsar Is Born <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ay1Kb.1133$%***@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
>
> "Louis Epstein" <***@PUF.FCC.NET> wrote in message
> > As ever,one must defer to the Mandate of Heaven,which can pass
> > by force of arms...NOT any enactment by a Parliament.
>
> So you accept William III's legitimacy after the Battle of the Boyne (July
> 12, 1690) but not before?
>
The Boyne was *1st* July 1690, Old Style. When the calendar shifted by
11 days in 1753, they started celebrating the anniversary on the 12th. The
Battle of Aughrim, OTOH, was 12th July 1691 OS.
Rich Rostrom
2004-01-04 11:39:43 UTC
Permalink
"Graham Truesdale" <***@virgin.nospam.net> wrote:

>The statement that Elizabeth II is not the heiress of Richard Duke of York
>is nothing new. None of the monarchs since 1689 have been his heir[ess].
>They have reigned by virtue of the Glorious Revolution, and the Bill of
>Rights and Act of Settlement passed after it. The question of who is
>the heir of any royal pre-1689 is relevant only to Jacobites.

Nonsense. You write as though Parliament, in 1689, was free to
choose anyone at all in the world to succeed to the English crown;
that having disqualified James II and his son as Catholics, Parliament's
choice was made in complete indifference to lines of descent and could
just as easily fallen on the Duke of Albemarle or Samuel Pepys as on
the persons next in line of descent who were Protestant.

There was never the slightest chance of Parliament disposing of
the Crown to any person who was not next Protestant heir (or close
to it - William was third in line, married to the first in line).

Parliament may not have stated this explicitly, but it was clearly
implied in the Acts of Settlement.

Thus by implication if not explicitly, the inheritance of the British
crown or crowns by the Houses of Hanover and Saxe-Coburg is conditioned
on their descent from James I, whose English title was dependent on his
descent from Henry VIII, whose title most strictly came from his mother,
the eldest daughter of Edward IV, supposed eldest son of Richard of York,
senior descendant of the Mortimer line, the senior descendants of Edward
III after the death of King Richard II.

If Edward IV was illegitimate, then the line of descent is broken.
--
Never consume legumes before transacting whatsoever | Rich Rostrom
even in the outermost courtyard of a descendant of |
Timur the Terrible. | ***@dummy
--- Avram Davidson, _Dr. Bhumbo Singh_ | 21stcentury.net
Coreleus Corneleus
2004-01-04 18:21:29 UTC
Permalink
Rich Rostrom <***@rcn.com> wrote in message news:<rrostrom.21stcentury-***@reader3.news.rcn.net>...
> "Graham Truesdale" <***@virgin.nospam.net> wrote:

> ...
>
> Nonsense. You write as though Parliament, in 1689, was free to
> choose anyone at all in the world to succeed to the English crown;
> that having disqualified James II and his son as Catholics, Parliament's
> choice was made in complete indifference to lines of descent and could
> just as easily fallen on the Duke of Albemarle or Samuel Pepys as on
> the persons next in line of descent who were Protestant.
>
> There was never the slightest chance of Parliament disposing of
> the Crown to any person who was not next Protestant heir (or close
> to it - William was third in line, married to the first in line).
>
> Parliament may not have stated this explicitly, but it was clearly
> implied in the Acts of Settlement.

Perhaps this is somewhat tangential to the thread, but how were the
Holy Roman Emperors and the kings of Poland chosen throughout time?
Peter Wilkinson
2004-01-05 00:43:51 UTC
Permalink
In<rrostrom.21stcentury-***@reader3.news.rcn.net>,
Rich Rostrom <***@rcn.com> wrote:

>"Graham Truesdale" <***@virgin.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>The statement that Elizabeth II is not the heiress of Richard Duke of York
>>is nothing new. None of the monarchs since 1689 have been his heir[ess].
>>They have reigned by virtue of the Glorious Revolution, and the Bill of
>>Rights and Act of Settlement passed after it. The question of who is
>>the heir of any royal pre-1689 is relevant only to Jacobites.
>
>Nonsense. You write as though Parliament, in 1689, was free to
>choose anyone at all in the world to succeed to the English crown;
>that having disqualified James II and his son as Catholics, Parliament's
>choice was made in complete indifference to lines of descent and could
>just as easily fallen on the Duke of Albemarle or Samuel Pepys as on
>the persons next in line of descent who were Protestant.
>
>There was never the slightest chance of Parliament disposing of
>the Crown to any person who was not next Protestant heir (or close
>to it - William was third in line, married to the first in line).

But Parliament did precisely that in 1701 when it declared the
Hanoverians next in succession. Admittedly most of the 50-odd people
with a genealogically better claim to the throne than George I were
Catholic, but some were Protestant. Though, to be fair, the
Hanoverians were the nearest heirs who were both Protestant and
willing to take the crown on the terms being offered.

The situation in 1689 was admittedly different, with only James II and
William (with Mary) up for consideration. But this had as much to do
with William having 15,000 Dutch troops (and/or Dutch-paid
mercenaries) within easy distance of London as with William being
third in line of succession.

>Parliament may not have stated this explicitly, but it was clearly
>implied in the Acts of Settlement.
>
>Thus by implication if not explicitly, the inheritance of the British
>crown or crowns by the Houses of Hanover and Saxe-Coburg is conditioned
>on their descent from James I, whose English title was dependent on his
>descent from Henry VIII, whose title most strictly came from his mother,
>the eldest daughter of Edward IV, supposed eldest son of Richard of York,
>senior descendant of the Mortimer line, the senior descendants of Edward
>III after the death of King Richard II.

As I think someone has already pointed out, Henry VII claimed the
crown by right of conquest. He took care to marry Elizabeth of York
only *after* having Parliament confirm him as king; and hinting that
he was strictly king as Elizabeth's husband was one of the easiest
ways of losing royal favour or worse. Henry VIII and subsequent
monarchs did indeed also promote the claim through Elizabeth of York,
but never in preference to Henry VII's claim of conquest.

Indeed, they would have been foolish to do otherwise - because, even
(probably rightly) assuming them unaware of questions about Edward
IV's legitimacy, there were far better known questions about the
validity of his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville.

And, it should be added, illegitimacy is clearly not a complete bar to
the English throne. Depending on whether Henry VIII's marriage to
Catherine of Aragon was or was not valid, either Elizabeth I or Mary
Tudor must have been illegitimate. Both are listed in English history
books as monarchs.

>If Edward IV was illegitimate, then the line of descent is broken.
>--
>Never consume legumes before transacting whatsoever | Rich Rostrom
>even in the outermost courtyard of a descendant of |
>Timur the Terrible. | ***@dummy
> --- Avram Davidson, _Dr. Bhumbo Singh_ | 21stcentury.net

Peter Wilkinson
***@pwilkinson.cix.co.uk
Bubbablue
2004-01-05 12:07:18 UTC
Permalink
Rich Rostrom <***@rcn.com> wrote:
>
> If Edward IV was illegitimate, then the line of descent is broken.

But legitimacy is a matter of LAW, not a matter of BIOLOGY.

If a child is born to a married woman, and the woman's husband
acknowledges that the child is his, the child is legitimate. No
exceptions. This holds true even if the child is biologically not the
father's.

wd39
k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2004-01-05 13:45:26 UTC
Permalink
In article
<rrostrom.21stcentury-***@reader3.news.rcn.net>,
***@rcn.com (Rich Rostrom) wrote:

> whose English title was dependent on his
> descent from Henry VIII, whose title most strictly came from his
> mother, the eldest daughter of Edward IV, supposed eldest son of >
> Richard of York,

Well for a start Edward was not the oldest son of Richard of York, he
was the oldest surviving son. Next the Tudors traced their claim to
the throne to their ancestors not the illegitimate (in their view)
Yorkist line. Finally Henry VII claimed the throne by right of
conquest and his bloodline. He was proclaimed King and crowned well
before he married Elizabeth of York.

Also as has been pointed out Clarence was attainted, this removed any
right for his descendants to the crown.

Ken Young
***@cix.co.uk

Those who cover themselves with martial glory
frequently go in need of any other garment. (Bramah)
mike stone
2004-01-05 19:54:17 UTC
Permalink
>From: ***@cix.compulink.co.uk

>Also as has been pointed out Clarence was attainted, this removed any
>right for his descendants to the crown.

This has often been asserted, but is it true? Afaik, as of 1483 there had never
been a legal ruling on the point. And the 1478 Act of Attainder on Clarence
made no mention of his descendants' right to the thone. merely declaring the
extinction of his royal Dukedom. Any disqalification of Warwick and Margaret
from the Royal succession was by implication only, and maybe not even that


--
Mike Stone - Peterborough England

Call nothing true until it has been officially denied
hlg
2004-01-06 14:11:47 UTC
Permalink
<***@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
news:btbppm$shf$***@thorium.cix.co.uk...
> In article
> <rrostrom.21stcentury-***@reader3.news.rcn.net>,
>
> Also as has been pointed out Clarence was attainted, this removed any
> right for his descendants to the crown.
>

Attainder was applied and reversed so often in the Wars of the Roses, that
it could not be held to bind absolutely any future monarch or Parliament.
mike stone
2004-01-06 14:28:35 UTC
Permalink
>From: "hlg" ***@ga110n7744.freeserve.co.uk

>
><***@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message

>> Also as has been pointed out Clarence was attainted, this removed any
>> right for his descendants to the crown.
>>
>
>Attainder was applied and reversed so often in the Wars of the Roses, that
>it could not be held to bind absolutely any future monarch or Parliament.

And as I said, the legal position was ambiguous.

Afaik, the first legal ruling on this point was around 1495, in which it was
held that as Henry VII _had_ become King he was no longer attainted - that
accession to the throne "washed away" such disabilities. But of course this
ruling was essentially the ratification of a fait accompli, and irrelevant to
events before it was made. However, Henry VI returned to the throne in1470
despite having been attainted by Edward IV, and Edward returned in 1471 in
spite of having been attainted by Henry <g>
--
Mike Stone - Peterborough England

Call nothing true until it has been officially denied
Mike Keating
2004-01-04 20:02:50 UTC
Permalink
"Graham Truesdale" <***@virgin.nospam.net> wrote in message news:<bt7l0u$s20$***@hercules.btinternet.com>...

> The statement that Elizabeth II is not the heiress of Richard Duke of York
> is nothing new. None of the monarchs since 1689 have been his heir[ess].
> They have reigned by virtue of the Glorious Revolution, and the Bill of
> Rights
> and Act of Settlement passed after it. The question of who is the heir of
> any royal pre-1689 is relevant only to Jacobites.
>

None of which is relevant either, since the Glorious Revolution was an
OTL event. If you've changed the whole lineage going up to 1689, then
the Glorious Revoltuion won't happen, since the King that Parliament
had had enough of OTL won't be King in the first place.
mike stone
2004-01-05 12:46:54 UTC
Permalink
>From: "Graham Truesdale" ***@virgin.nospam.net

>The statement that Elizabeth II is not the heiress of Richard Duke of York
>is nothing new. None of the monarchs since 1689 have been his heir[ess].
>They have reigned by virtue of the Glorious Revolution, and the Bill of
>Rights
>and Act of Settlement passed after it. The question of who is the heir of
>any royal pre-1689 is relevant only to Jacobites.
>
>Quite apart from the issue of Henry VII taking the crown off a bush at
>Bosworth
>and putting it on *before* he married Edward IV's daughter.

Not to mention the bastard offspring of a certain Falaise washerwoman
--
Mike Stone - Peterborough England

Call nothing true until it has been officially denied
Tony Bailey
2004-01-04 03:25:57 UTC
Permalink
"Gordon Davie" <***@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bt7d3s$l08$***@sparta.btinternet.com...
> Just watched a fascinating TV programme presented by Tony Robinson (better
> known perhaps as 'Baldrick' in the Blackadder series). While researching
for
> a previous programme on the murder of the Princes in the Tower, Robinson
> came across strong evidence that Edward IV of England was illegitimate
> (counting back from his date of birth, he must have been conceived in the
> middle of a five-week period when his supposed father Richard, Duke of
York,
> was fighting in France).
>

How does anyone know if he was at term or not?

My daughter was about 2.5 weeks early, with no problems, and we know the
exact date of conception. The Doctor commented that anything within about 3
weeks was accepted as being close enough to term anyway.

--
Tony Bailey
Mercury Travel Books
jlk7e
2004-01-04 06:45:25 UTC
Permalink
"Tony Bailey" <***@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:<3ff787c0$0$18690$***@news.optusnet.com.au>...
> "Gordon Davie" <***@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:bt7d3s$l08$***@sparta.btinternet.com...
> > Just watched a fascinating TV programme presented by Tony Robinson (better
> > known perhaps as 'Baldrick' in the Blackadder series). While researching
> for
> > a previous programme on the murder of the Princes in the Tower, Robinson
> > came across strong evidence that Edward IV of England was illegitimate
> > (counting back from his date of birth, he must have been conceived in the
> > middle of a five-week period when his supposed father Richard, Duke of
> York,
> > was fighting in France).
> >
>
> How does anyone know if he was at term or not?
>
> My daughter was about 2.5 weeks early, with no problems, and we know the
> exact date of conception. The Doctor commented that anything within about 3
> weeks was accepted as being close enough to term anyway.

Yes, this is ridiculous. The middle of a five week period? It would
seem perfectly plausible that the future king was conceived either
before or after his father's departure. A baby being born either 2.5
weeks early or 2.5 weeks late is hardly unheard of. And as others
have pointed out, it doesn't even matter. Edward was legally the son
of Richard Duke of York, whether or not he was biologically his son,
and was thus his legal heir. And the claims of monarchs from 1485 was
not based on descent from Richard, anyway.
Stanley
2004-01-04 04:55:48 UTC
Permalink
"Gordon Davie" <***@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bt7d3s$l08$***@sparta.btinternet.com...
> Just watched a fascinating TV programme presented by Tony Robinson
> (better known perhaps as 'Baldrick' in the Blackadder series). While
> researching for a previous programme on the murder of the Princes in
> the Tower, Robinson came across strong evidence that Edward IV of
> England was illegitimate(counting back from his date of birth, he must
> have been conceived in the middle of a five-week period when his
> supposed father Richard, Duke of York, was fighting in France).

OK, maybe that's the case. Do we know that the present British monarch is
actually descended from George I (1714-27) House of Brunswick, Hanover Line?
Victoria was separated by four generations from George I and Elizabeth II is
separated by four generations from Victoria.

Now, royals are known to engage in hanky panky on occasion and even the most
virtuous succumb to temptation. So, what-if we took tissue samples from the
bodies of all British monarchs (and their spouses) from the time of George I
to Elizabeth II? Would DNA demonstrate that George III was the father of
Edward, Duke of Kent ? Would DNA demonstrate that Edward, Duke of Kent was
Queen Victoria's father?

My guess is that a careful DNA analysis would reveal that somewhere on the
royal genealogical trail, things are not as they were recorded. In fact, I
would be surprised if things were *exactly* as recorded. George IV had many
mistresses until he secretly married Maria Fitzherbert, a Catholic. After
her dismissal from court, George again turned to mistresses until he
submitted to his father's wishes by marrying Caroline. The couple detested
each other and their marriagewas barely intact when their daughter was born
in 1796. Caroline took the child and moved to Italy, returning to England
when George succeeded his father, and then only to claim the rights of
queen.

William IV, born August 21, 1765, was the third son of George III and
Sophia. He cohabited with the actress Mrs. Dorothea Jordan from 1791-1811,
who bore him ten illegitimate children.

So what would happen if it should turn out that DNA proves that Prince
Albert was not the biological father of Edward VII? What if Edward's DNA is
a match for Tom O'Higgins (made up name) who worked as a palace blacksmith
in 1841?
AlanWilliams
2004-01-04 08:20:22 UTC
Permalink
"Stanley" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@news.teranews.com...
>
[snip]
> So what would happen if it should turn out that DNA proves that Prince
> Albert was not the biological father of Edward VII? What if Edward's DNA
is
> a match for Tom O'Higgins (made up name) who worked as a palace blacksmith
> in 1841?

That's about the least likely to have happened as Victoria was very much in
love/lust with Albert. There were jokes about her love of German sausage
:-)

Anyway Edward VII got the throne by being Victoria's son, not by being
Albert's.

Alan (in pedant mode)
Stanley
2004-01-04 12:15:09 UTC
Permalink
"AlanWilliams" <***@monemvasia.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bt8ijj$nb8$***@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Stanley" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:***@news.teranews.com...
> >
> [snip]
> > So what would happen if it should turn out that DNA proves that
> > Prince Albert was not the biological father of Edward VII? What if
> > Edward's DNA is a match for Tom O'Higgins (made up name) who
> > worked as a palace blacksmith in 1841?
>
> That's about the least likely to have happened as Victoria was very
> much in love/lust with Albert. There were jokes about her love of
> German sausage :-)
>
> Anyway Edward VII got the throne by being Victoria's son, not by being
> Albert's.

So, what is the probability that George I is the father of George II? What
is the probability that Edward, Duke of Kent was Queen Victoria's father?
And so on. If we figure the probability of proper paternity at 95% per
generation, the probability of proper paternity for eight generations is
66%. If we use 90% per generation, the probability for eight generations is
43%. Would you expect that DNA analysis would prove that the stated royal
lineage is accurate? I wouldn't.
AlanWilliams
2004-01-04 21:07:27 UTC
Permalink
"Stanley" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@news.teranews.com...
>
> "AlanWilliams" <***@monemvasia.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:bt8ijj$nb8$***@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > "Stanley" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:***@news.teranews.com...
> > >
> > [snip]
> > > So what would happen if it should turn out that DNA proves that
> > > Prince Albert was not the biological father of Edward VII? What if
> > > Edward's DNA is a match for Tom O'Higgins (made up name) who
> > > worked as a palace blacksmith in 1841?
> >
> > That's about the least likely to have happened as Victoria was very
> > much in love/lust with Albert. There were jokes about her love of
> > German sausage :-)
> >
> > Anyway Edward VII got the throne by being Victoria's son, not by being
> > Albert's.
>
> So, what is the probability that George I is the father of George II? What
> is the probability that Edward, Duke of Kent was Queen Victoria's father?
> And so on. If we figure the probability of proper paternity at 95% per
> generation, the probability of proper paternity for eight generations is
> 66%. If we use 90% per generation, the probability for eight generations
is
> 43%. Would you expect that DNA analysis would prove that the stated royal
> lineage is accurate? I wouldn't.

Well we could try putting some more accurate percentages on it. So working
backwards,

William being the son of Charles - I'd say around 95% although Harry is
another matter

Charles being the son of Elizabeth - 100%

Elizabeth being the daughter of George VI - say 80% as I've heard rumours
that he was unable to perform

George VI being the son of George V - around 99% as I can't imagine Queen
Mary being unfaithful. Too much of a cold fish to love anyone.

George V being the son of Edward VII - say 80% as Alexandra was very good
looking and might have thought that what was sauce for the gander was sauce
for the goose.

Edward VII being the son of Victoria - 100%

Victoria being the daughter of Edward Duke of Kent - I reckon around 50% so
here's a major problem

Edward being the son of George III - 100% I'd say as Charlotte and George
III seem to have been in love

For the rest I'll say 95% as I've really no idea.

So, my guesstimate is just under 25% for Prince William being the legitimate
heir to the Electress Sophia. Even if Victoria was legitimate it's less
than 50%.

Alan
Bubbablue
2004-01-05 12:24:31 UTC
Permalink
"AlanWilliams" <***@monemvasia.freeserve.co.uk> wrote :

>
> Victoria being the daughter of Edward Duke of Kent - I reckon around 50% so
> here's a major problem

Except that Victoria was the spitting image of her father. So was
Edward VII, his granddaughter Princess Mary, and Mary's son the
current Viscount Lascelles.

wd39
jlk7e
2004-01-05 02:49:21 UTC
Permalink
"Stanley" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<***@news.teranews.com>...
> "Gordon Davie" <***@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:bt7d3s$l08$***@sparta.btinternet.com...
> > Just watched a fascinating TV programme presented by Tony Robinson
> > (better known perhaps as 'Baldrick' in the Blackadder series). While
> > researching for a previous programme on the murder of the Princes in
> > the Tower, Robinson came across strong evidence that Edward IV of
> > England was illegitimate(counting back from his date of birth, he must
> > have been conceived in the middle of a five-week period when his
> > supposed father Richard, Duke of York, was fighting in France).
>
> OK, maybe that's the case. Do we know that the present British monarch is
> actually descended from George I (1714-27) House of Brunswick, Hanover Line?
> Victoria was separated by four generations from George I and Elizabeth II is
> separated by four generations from Victoria.

Actually, it's a pretty solid chain. George II was surely the son of
George I; Frederick, Prince of Wales of George II; George III of
Frederick; Edward, Duke of Kent of George III; Edward VII of Victoria;
George V of Edward VII; George VI of George V; and Elizabeth of George
VI. Some have tried to argue that Victoria was not the son of the
Duke of Kent, but this is usually based on complete ridiculousness
about the sudden appearance of hemophilia.

> Now, royals are known to engage in hanky panky on occasion and even the most
> virtuous succumb to temptation. So, what-if we took tissue samples from the
> bodies of all British monarchs (and their spouses) from the time of George I
> to Elizabeth II? Would DNA demonstrate that George III was the father of
> Edward, Duke of Kent ? Would DNA demonstrate that Edward, Duke of Kent was
> Queen Victoria's father?
>
> My guess is that a careful DNA analysis would reveal that somewhere on the
> royal genealogical trail, things are not as they were recorded. In fact, I
> would be surprised if things were *exactly* as recorded. George IV had many
> mistresses until he secretly married Maria Fitzherbert, a Catholic. After
> her dismissal from court, George again turned to mistresses until he
> submitted to his father's wishes by marrying Caroline. The couple detested
> each other and their marriagewas barely intact when their daughter was born
> in 1796. Caroline took the child and moved to Italy, returning to England
> when George succeeded his father, and then only to claim the rights of
> queen.
>
> William IV, born August 21, 1765, was the third son of George III and
> Sophia. He cohabited with the actress Mrs. Dorothea Jordan from 1791-1811,
> who bore him ten illegitimate children.

Neither of these is an ancestor of the Queen. Furthermore, one would
have to prove adultery on the part of the *woman*.
Sydney Webb
2004-01-05 03:51:27 UTC
Permalink
jlk7e wrote:

<snip>

> Some have tried to argue that Victoria was not the son of the
> Duke of Kent, but this is usually based on complete ridiculousness

.sig!

--
"Some have tried to argue that Victoria was not the son of the
Duke of Kent, but this is usually based on complete ridiculousness"
- jlk7e
jlk7e
2004-01-05 06:55:17 UTC
Permalink
Sydney Webb <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<***@hotmail.com>...
> jlk7e wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Some have tried to argue that Victoria was not the son of the
> > Duke of Kent, but this is usually based on complete ridiculousness
>
> .sig!

God damn it! Daughter! Daughter!
Bubbablue
2004-01-05 12:20:00 UTC
Permalink
"Stanley" <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

> George IV had many
> mistresses until he secretly married Maria Fitzherbert, a Catholic.

Nit: although the Prince of Wales went through a form of marriage with
her, he didn't actually legally marry her. The marriage was invalid by
virtue of the Royal Marriages Act, and therefore never existed in the
first place.

> George again turned to mistresses until he
> submitted to his father's wishes by marrying Caroline.

It was more Parliament's wish that he marry, although George III did
approve of Caroline of Brunswick. It was also very, very much the
Prince of Wales's wish, given that Parliament was prepared to pay off
his absolutely enormous debts if he would only marry and father an
heir.

> So what would happen if it should turn out that DNA proves that Prince
> Albert was not the biological father of Edward VII?

Was Prince Albert the sovereign? (Anyway, unless you're positing a
possible violent act carried out against Queen Victoria, that scenario
is highly unlikely. Victoria adored Albert.)

wd39, who thought for a moment she was on alt.talk.royalty
Donnie
2004-01-04 10:54:18 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 21:44:28 +0000 (UTC), "Gordon Davie"
<***@btinternet.com> wrote:

>Just watched a fascinating TV programme presented by Tony Robinson (better
>known perhaps as 'Baldrick' in the Blackadder series). While researching for
CUT ONLY FOR BREVITY
>Check out
>http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/heads/footnotes/monarch
>.html
>for more details, including a complete family tree!

With all (and I mean ALL) due respect all that this programme proved
is that Tony Robinson is very good at portraying "Baldrick".

Donnie.*


* Probably Prince Donald the 19th.
Raymond Speer
2004-01-04 15:38:39 UTC
Permalink
I am loathe to agree with Hanoverian supporters, but they are right in
this instance. A couple weeks early or late from the traditional nine
months of human gestation is incredibly common, and demonstrates
nothing.
Rich Rostrom
2004-01-04 11:41:19 UTC
Permalink
"Gordon Davie" <***@btinternet.com> wrote:

> Edward IV of England was illegitimate
>(counting back from his date of birth, he must have been conceived in the
>middle of a five-week period when his supposed father Richard, Duke of York,
>was fighting in France).

What's news about this? Doesn't Shakespeare depict Richard of
Gloucester raising this very point as he moves to usurp the
crown from his nephew?
--
Never consume legumes before transacting whatsoever | Rich Rostrom
even in the outermost courtyard of a descendant of |
Timur the Terrible. | ***@dummy
--- Avram Davidson, _Dr. Bhumbo Singh_ | 21stcentury.net
hlg
2004-01-04 20:50:06 UTC
Permalink
"Rich Rostrom" <***@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:rrostrom.21stcentury-***@reader3.news.rcn.net...
> "Gordon Davie" <***@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > Edward IV of England was illegitimate
> >(counting back from his date of birth, he must have been conceived in the
> >middle of a five-week period when his supposed father Richard, Duke of
York,
> >was fighting in France).

Richard, Duke of York never seems to have worried about it. He and Cicely
Neville went happily on to produce three more sons and a daughter. By all
accounts they were a close couple. Richard and Cicely's brother Richard,
Earl of Salisbury were also closely allied. (They both died at the Battle of
Wakefield in 1460). Unless Richard of York was a character prepared in 1442
to put his political manoeverings before his wife's betrayal, which seems
unlikely, then he was either a fool (which he definitely was not) or had no
reason to suspect Cicely. I believe the latter. In any case Edward, Earl of
March (the future Edward IV) was most definitely a chip off the Yorkist
block.

>
> What's news about this? Doesn't Shakespeare depict Richard of
> Gloucester raising this very point as he moves to usurp the
> crown from his nephew?
> --

Richard's original argument was that the marriage of Edward IV was not
properly solemnized, and that therefore his children were illegitimate. As
Edward had married Elizabeth Woodville in secret, this was a difficult
charge to prove or disprove beyond dispute. The argument that Edward himself
had been illegitimate was probably over-egging the pudding, if it really was
Richard's idea.

***

In any case the absolute legitimacy of any monarch of England (in terms of
both conception in wedlock, or of the means by which the throne was gained)
is very dubious from 1399 onwards, when Henry Bolingbroke, Duke of
Lancaster, deposed Richard II to become Henry IV himself.

Bolingbroke's descent was from the invalid marriage of John of Gaunt to
Catherine Roelt, which was not legitimized until much later, with the
stipulation that the children already born could not inherit the throne.
Gaunt was Duke of Lancaster and second son of Edward III. Richard, Duke of
York could claim descent from Lionel, Duke of Clarence and Edmund Langley,
second and fourth sons respectively of Edward III. In theory, Lionel's line
of descent (through his daughter, Phillipa, Countess of Ulster, who married
Edmund Mortimer, Earl of March) should have overridden any claim of
Bolingbroke's; so from 1399, when Parliament acquiesced in Bolingbroke's
usurpation, they abandoned the strict letter of the law in favour of
convenience and force of individual character.

Henry VII, who became King in 1485 on the death of Richard III in battle,
claimed descent (via Margaret Beaufort) from Henry IV and therefore in
theory the Lancaster claim once again overrode the York / Mortimer claim.
And once again, the country accepted a new monarch on the grounds that
anything was better than no monarch at all. This didn't stop the heirs of
the York claim, i.e. the Poles (descendants of Edward IV's sister
Elizabeth), having another go at gaining the throne, but in essence, all
British monarchs after 1485, claim their descent from Henry VII, not his
wife Elizabeth [yes, there are all too many Elizabeths, Edwards and Richards
in this post], daughter of Edward IV.

***

There have been a few Edward IV "What-ifs" in this NG. Mostly on the lines
of, "WI Edward IV lives long enough for his son to inherit when of full age
?" My opinion is that Edward V needed to be not only old enough, but also a
pretty strong character. Unless Edward IV had already done so, then sooner
or later Edward V would have to order the death of one or other of his
uncles (Richard of York, or Earl Rivers), and probably some of his cousins
too. But I digress slightly.

On a like topic, what if the claims of George, Duke of Clarence's [i.e. the
brother of Edward IV. Referring to notable people by titles which could
descend generations or be transferred by Royal gift or act of Parliament is
one of the things which makes mediaeval history hard to follow sometimes]
children had been allowed ? Well, ignoring the probability that not many
people will trust Clarence, it should be remembered that his son Edward (who
inherited the original Neville title of Earl of Warwick) was probably a
simpleton. Some of this may have been due to him being locked up in the
Tower
almost since birth, nobody seems to have regarded him as a monarch, except
as a figurehead for some more forceful character.

His daughter, Margaret (who also inherited a Neville title, of Countess of
Salisbury) married Richard Pole and had three sons and a daughter. Henry
VIII worried enough about their activities to execute one of the male
children and condemn another to death but not actually top him. However,
these children were yet to be conceived in 1483. Nobody could seriously have
considered Margaret as a reigning Queen at the time.

As with other occasions of regal uncertainty which other posters have
mentioned (succession of James I; the Glorious Revolution; the accession
of the Elector of Hanover etc), the monarchy of Britain has been given to
the
candidate acknowledged at the time to be the most suitable, or the least
disastrous.
Rich Rostrom
2004-01-06 10:47:16 UTC
Permalink
"hlg" <***@ga110n7744.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

>In theory, Lionel's line
>of descent (through his daughter, Phillipa, Countess of Ulster, who married
>Edmund Mortimer, Earl of March) should have overridden any claim of
>Bolingbroke's; so from 1399, when Parliament acquiesced in Bolingbroke's
>usurpation, they abandoned the strict letter of the law in favour of
>convenience and force of individual character.

Which planted the seed for Richard of York's claim to the throne
and subsequent rebellion.

Shakespeare brings this point up. I mention Shakespeare not as
an authentic chronicler, but as a reflection of common opinion
on the subject. In _Richard II_, when the moment comes for Henry
Bolingbroke to claim the throne, the Bishop of Carlisle steps
forward to object vehemently:

And if you crown him, let me prophesy:
The blood of English shall manure the ground,
And future ages groan for this foul act;
Peace shall go sleep with Turks and infidels,
And in this seat of peace tumultuous wars
Shall kin with kin and kind with kind confound;
Disorder, horror, fear and mutiny
Shall here inhabit, and this land be call'd
The field of Golgotha and dead men's skulls.
O, if you raise this house against this house,
It will the woefullest division prove
That ever fell upon this cursed earth.

He shows Henry VI floundering rather helplessly when Richard
asserts his claim - speaking aside

I know not what to say; my title's weak.

One of Henry's supporters, the Duke of Exeter, yields to
Richard's argument, saying

My conscience tells me he is lawful king.

All this says to me that as of Shakespeare's time, there was a
fairly strong general consensus that 'right of conquest' was
usurpation and treason. A Henry Bolingbroke or Henry Tudor
could override this feeling temporarily, but always had to
worry about higher-ranking heirs.

Thus, while Henry VII never claimed the crown as husband of
Elizabeth of York, Henry VIII found it very useful to be
her heir, and thus be senior heir to the Yorkist claim.

Henry VII could be challenged as a usurper; Henry VIII
could not.

_Unless_ Edward was a bastard and not the child of Richard
of York. In that case the Yorkist claim passed to the
descendants of Clarence, and the Tudors were usurpers.

The Stuarts inherited the crown by reason of their descent
from the Tudors. The Hanovers inherited by reason of their
descent from the Stuarts, and so on.

If the Tudors' title was not legitimate, then all subsequent
inheritance is not legitimate either.
--
Never consume legumes before transacting whatsoever | Rich Rostrom
even in the outermost courtyard of a descendant of |
Timur the Terrible. | ***@dummy
--- Avram Davidson, _Dr. Bhumbo Singh_ | 21stcentury.net
Colin Alberts
2004-01-07 15:13:53 UTC
Permalink
Rich Rostrom <***@rcn.com> wrote in message news:<rrostrom.21stcentury-***@reader3.news.rcn.net>...
> "hlg" <***@ga110n7744.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In theory, Lionel's line
> >of descent (through his daughter, Phillipa, Countess of Ulster, who married
> >Edmund Mortimer, Earl of March) should have overridden any claim of
> >Bolingbroke's; so from 1399, when Parliament acquiesced in Bolingbroke's
> >usurpation, they abandoned the strict letter of the law in favour of
> >convenience and force of individual character.
>
> Which planted the seed for Richard of York's claim to the throne
> and subsequent rebellion.
[snip]
> The Stuarts inherited the crown by reason of their descent
> from the Tudors. The Hanovers inherited by reason of their
> descent from the Stuarts, and so on.
> If the Tudors' title was not legitimate, then all subsequent
> inheritance is not legitimate either.

There was (and is) an even more bizarre dynastic theory which pushes
the post-Conquest "break" from 'rightful' to 'usurper' much further
back than 1485, or Edward IV's birth in 1442, or even Richard II's
deposition in 1399:

In 1200 King John divorced his first wife and married Isabella of
Angouleme, and *all* English (and later British) monarchs (and
pretenders) to the present day derive from that union. But if that
divorce was invalid, as some argued at the time and ever since, then
John and Isabella's children were bastards and their descendants
ineligible to the throne. That would make the rightful line the heirs
of Henry the Lion, Duke of Saxony and Bavaria (died 1195) and his wife
Matilda (John's elder sister). Ordinarily this would be an obscure
footnote except that in the early 18th century the direct male heir of
Henry the Lion just happened to be...

George, the Elector of Hanover! For some, this meant it was much
easier to swallow his accession as George I after Anne's death in 1714
(although it followed from the Act of Succession, he was by legimate
reckoning fifty-eighth in line to succeed), and the theory won support
in a lot of interesting places (John Wesley from time to time adopted
it). Of course, the downside was that it required the belief that all
English monarchs from 1216 to 1714 were usurpers.

The fact that anybody in early 18th century Britain toyed around with
this historical reconstruction at all suggests that there were a
number of people even among the Whigs who were deeply uncomfortable
with all the Parliamentary offerings and shiftings of crowns, and
wanted the satisfaction of a purely hereditary explanation for the
Hanovers.

Colin Alberts
quod scripsi scripsi
mike stone
2004-01-07 16:03:19 UTC
Permalink
>From: ***@hotmail.com (Colin Alberts)

>
>There was (and is) an even more bizarre dynastic theory which pushes
>the post-Conquest "break" from 'rightful' to 'usurper' much further
>back than 1485, or Edward IV's birth in 1442, or even Richard II's
>deposition in 1399:
>
>In 1200 King John divorced his first wife and married Isabella of
>Angouleme, and *all* English (and later British) monarchs (and
>pretenders) to the present day derive from that union. But if that
>divorce was invalid, as some argued at the time and ever since, then
>John and Isabella's children were bastards and their descendants
>ineligible to the throne. That would make the rightful line the heirs
>of Henry the Lion, Duke of Saxony and Bavaria (died 1195) and his wife
>Matilda (John's elder sister). Ordinarily this would be an obscure
>footnote except that in the early 18th century the direct male heir of
>Henry the Lion just happened to be...
>
>George, the Elector of Hanover! For some, this meant it was much
>easier to swallow his accession as George I after Anne's death in 1714
>(although it followed from the Act of Succession, he was by legimate
>reckoning fifty-eighth in line to succeed), and the theory won support
>in a lot of interesting places (John Wesley from time to time adopted
>it). Of course, the downside was that it required the belief that all
>English monarchs from 1216 to 1714 were usurpers.
>

It was a nice try, but doesn't quite wash

The Electors of Hanover are heirs to Henry the Lion through his _youngest_ son,
by virtue of the Salic Law. But of course the SL has never applied in England,
so the rightful English claimants on his line would be the descendants of Henry
and Matilda's _eldest_ son, Henry Count Palatine, whose male line is extinct
but notm his female one.

A quick check on the "Heritage" cd indicates that Henry's rights passed to the
Babenberg Dukes of Austria (heirs of the so-and-so that kidnapped Richard the
Lionheart) and then in 1268 to the Margraves of Baden. The latter (unless I
have missed a connection) seem to hold it until 1771, after which it passes to
Louis Duc d'Orleans, father of Philippe Egalité and grandfather of King Louis
Philippe. It stays in that family (male line) until 1894, when it passes to
Princess Amelie of Paris, wife of Carlos I of Portugal. After she dies
childless in 1951, it passes to Marguerita of Savoy-Aosta, the granddaughter of
her sister Helene. Afaik, Marguerita is still alive (she would be 73) and is
the widow of one Archduke Robert Karl of Austria-Este, second son of Emperor
Karl I and younger brother of Dr Otto Habsburg. Her heir is her eldest son
Archduke Lorenz Otto, Prince of Belgium (by marriage to Princess Astrid
Josephine, daughter of Albert II, the present king of the Belgians)

All very interesting but doesn't seem to help George I very much. Incidentally,
the Margraves of Baden-Baden, who held this claim in 1714, were Catholic. Iirc.
the Protestant branch of their family only inherited Baden later




>The fact that anybody in early 18th century Britain toyed around with
>this historical reconstruction at all suggests that there were a
>number of people even among the Whigs who were deeply uncomfortable
>with all the Parliamentary offerings and shiftings of crowns, and
>wanted the satisfaction of a purely hereditary explanation for the
>Hanovers.
>
>Colin Alberts
>quod scripsi scripsi
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
Mike Stone - Peterborough England

Call nothing true until it has been officially denied
Rich Rostrom
2004-01-07 23:35:17 UTC
Permalink
***@hotmail.com (Colin Alberts) wrote:


>There was (and is) an even more bizarre dynastic theory which pushes
>the post-Conquest "break" from 'rightful' to 'usurper' much further
>back than 1485, or Edward IV's birth in 1442, or even Richard II's
>deposition in 1399:
>
>In 1200 King John divorced his first wife and married Isabella of
>Angouleme, and *all* English (and later British) monarchs (and
>pretenders) to the present day derive from that union. But if that
>divorce was invalid, as some argued at the time and ever since, then
>John and Isabella's children were bastards and their descendants
>ineligible to the throne. That would make the rightful line the heirs
>of Henry the Lion, Duke of Saxony and Bavaria (died 1195) and his wife
>Matilda (John's elder sister). Ordinarily this would be an obscure
>footnote except that in the early 18th century the direct male heir of
>Henry the Lion just happened to be...
>
>George, the Elector of Hanover! For some, this meant it was much
>easier to swallow his accession as George I after Anne's death in 1714
>(although it followed from the Act of Succession, he was by legimate
>reckoning fifty-eighth in line to succeed), and the theory won support
>in a lot of interesting places (John Wesley from time to time adopted
>it). Of course, the downside was that it required the belief that all
>English monarchs from 1216 to 1714 were usurpers.

Fascinating!

>
>The fact that anybody in early 18th century Britain toyed around with
>this historical reconstruction at all suggests that there were a
>number of people even among the Whigs who were deeply uncomfortable
>with all the Parliamentary offerings and shiftings of crowns, and
>wanted the satisfaction of a purely hereditary explanation for the
>Hanovers.

I think the single biggest difference bwtween the history of Europe
(in the age of Kings, i.e. 1000-1800 or so) and the history of the
Middle East, China, India, etc, and of the ancient world, is the
strength of the hereditary principle among Europeans.

Not just in one country, but as a form of 'international law'. Many
of the great territorial transfers (most, now that I think about it)
that occurred in Europe were not made by war, but by inheritance.

That these transfers occurred, were accepted, took effect with in
most cases little or no resistance, is remarkable. The preposterous
heritage of Charles V is the great example of this. And I would
emphasize not just his lordship over several separate kingdoms,
but his unchallenged hold on odd bits of territory such as the
Sundgau and Hither Austria.

And there were similar holdings by much lesser princes that were
just as secure.

Even when titles were disputed, it was nearly always on the basis
of contending claims under the hereditary principle.

I don't think there has ever been a parallel to this in any other
part of the world.
--
Were there eight kings of the name of Henry in England, or were | Rich Rostrom
there eighty? Never mind; someday it will be recorded that there | rrostrom
was only one, and the attributes of all of them will be combined | .21stcentury
into his compressed and and consensus story. | @omitthis
--- R. A. Lafferty, _And Read the Flesh Between the Lines_ | .rcn.com
Coreleus Corneleus
2004-01-09 04:23:33 UTC
Permalink
Rich Rostrom <***@rcn.com> wrote in message news:<rrostrom.21stcentury-***@reader3.news.rcn.net>...
> ***@hotmail.com (Colin Alberts) wrote:
>
>
> >There was (and is) an even more bizarre dynastic theory which pushes
> >the post-Conquest "break" from 'rightful' to 'usurper' much further
> >back than 1485, or Edward IV's birth in 1442, or even Richard II's
> >deposition in 1399:
> >
> >In 1200 King John divorced his first wife and married Isabella of
> >Angouleme, and *all* English (and later British) monarchs (and
> >pretenders) to the present day derive from that union. But if that
> >divorce was invalid, as some argued at the time and ever since, then
> >John and Isabella's children were bastards and their descendants
> >ineligible to the throne. That would make the rightful line the heirs
> >of Henry the Lion, Duke of Saxony and Bavaria (died 1195) and his wife
> >Matilda (John's elder sister). Ordinarily this would be an obscure
> >footnote except that in the early 18th century the direct male heir of
> >Henry the Lion just happened to be...
> >
> >George, the Elector of Hanover! For some, this meant it was much
> >easier to swallow his accession as George I after Anne's death in 1714
> >(although it followed from the Act of Succession, he was by legimate
> >reckoning fifty-eighth in line to succeed), and the theory won support
> >in a lot of interesting places (John Wesley from time to time adopted
> >it). Of course, the downside was that it required the belief that all
> >English monarchs from 1216 to 1714 were usurpers.
>
> Fascinating!
>
> >
> >The fact that anybody in early 18th century Britain toyed around with
> >this historical reconstruction at all suggests that there were a
> >number of people even among the Whigs who were deeply uncomfortable
> >with all the Parliamentary offerings and shiftings of crowns, and
> >wanted the satisfaction of a purely hereditary explanation for the
> >Hanovers.
>
> I think the single biggest difference bwtween the history of Europe
> (in the age of Kings, i.e. 1000-1800 or so) and the history of the
> Middle East, China, India, etc, and of the ancient world, is the
> strength of the hereditary principle among Europeans.
>
> Not just in one country, but as a form of 'international law'. Many
> of the great territorial transfers (most, now that I think about it)
> that occurred in Europe were not made by war, but by inheritance.
>
> That these transfers occurred, were accepted, took effect with in
> most cases little or no resistance, is remarkable. The preposterous
> heritage of Charles V is the great example of this. And I would
> emphasize not just his lordship over several separate kingdoms,
> but his unchallenged hold on odd bits of territory such as the
> Sundgau and Hither Austria.
>
> And there were similar holdings by much lesser princes that were
> just as secure.
>
> Even when titles were disputed, it was nearly always on the basis
> of contending claims under the hereditary principle.
>
> I don't think there has ever been a parallel to this in any other
> part of the world.

Hereditary alone, per se., I think was in a wide array of places.
From Ancient Babylonia, Assyria, and Persia, through Egypt, some
aspects of a few of the lines of Roman Emperors, China, and Japan.

Another major aspect of the phenomenon in Europe, however, is that
there were other places where there were other kings interacting on
the European scene, with which they could intermarry. It was not a
situation of a single monarchy and hinterlands alone.

With places where you did have interacting city-states, like in
Renaisance Italy, or Greece, often some of the major players were
democracies with 'archons' or the like, but with no formal interacting
role that could be considered to be like a 'king', that would be
transferred to other city-states.

As far as the ancient Mayans and the ancient Sumerians, I do not know
enough about their history to be able to say much about their
situation.

The closest earlier equivalent would probably have been among some of
the different states in India during the middle ages.
Rich Rostrom
2004-01-09 05:57:10 UTC
Permalink
***@yahoo.com (Coreleus Corneleus) wrote:

>Rich Rostrom <***@rcn.com> wrote:

>> I think the single biggest difference bwtween the history of Europe
>> (in the age of Kings, i.e. 1000-1800 or so) and the history of the
>> Middle East, China, India, etc, and of the ancient world, is the
>> strength of the hereditary principle among Europeans...
>>
>> I don't think there has ever been a parallel to this in any other
>> part of the world.
>
>Hereditary alone, per se., I think was in a wide array of places.
>From Ancient Babylonia, Assyria, and Persia, through Egypt, some
>aspects of a few of the lines of Roman Emperors, China, and Japan.

Father-to-son hereditary monarchy _is_ fairly common around the
world. What is not common is the extended hereditarianism of Europe.

Where else in the world would a king's distant cousin be
considered the obvious and unquestioned heir? Or such heirship
be sufficient ground to threaten the reign of an otherwise
secure monarch?

Where else could a foreigner inherit a crown?

(And where else did rulers _frequently_ hold fiefdoms in other
sovereign countries, or possess multiple domains that were
legally separate? Has there ever been a 'personal union' anywhere
but in Europe?)
--
Were there eight kings of the name of Henry in England, or were | Rich Rostrom
there eighty? Never mind; someday it will be recorded that there | rrostrom
was only one, and the attributes of all of them will be combined | .21stcentury
into his compressed and and consensus story. | @omitthis
--- R. A. Lafferty, _And Read the Flesh Between the Lines_ | .rcn.com
Colin Alberts
2004-01-13 15:01:14 UTC
Permalink
Rich Rostrom <***@rcn.com> wrote in message news:<rrostrom.21stcentury-***@reader3.news.rcn.net>...
> "Gordon Davie" <***@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > Edward IV of England was illegitimate
> >(counting back from his date of birth, he must have been conceived in the
> >middle of a five-week period when his supposed father Richard, Duke of York,
> >was fighting in France).
>
> What's news about this? Doesn't Shakespeare depict Richard of
> Gloucester raising this very point as he moves to usurp the
> crown from his nephew?

Since nobody else seemed to quote it:

Nay, for a need, thus far come near my person:
Tell them, when that my mother went with child
Of that unsatiate Edward, noble York
My princely father then had wars in France
And, by just computation of the time,
Found that the issue was not his begot;
Which well appeared in his lineaments,
Being nothing like the noble duke my father:
But touch this sparingly, as 'twere far off,
Because you know, my lord, my mother lives.

Richard III, Act 3 Scene 5.

This morning the BBC World Service interviewed Michael Hastings, the
Earl of Loudoun now living in Australia, who would be the legitimate
monarch if Edward's bastardy were proven. He sounds like a likeable
gentleman, and the irony is...

he's a die-hard republican.

Colin Alberts
quod scripsi scripsi
The Horny Goat
2004-01-24 10:38:58 UTC
Permalink
On 13 Jan 2004 07:01:14 -0800, ***@hotmail.com (Colin Alberts)
wrote:

>Since nobody else seemed to quote it:
>
>Nay, for a need, thus far come near my person:
>Tell them, when that my mother went with child
>Of that unsatiate Edward, noble York
>My princely father then had wars in France
>And, by just computation of the time,
>Found that the issue was not his begot;
>Which well appeared in his lineaments,
>Being nothing like the noble duke my father:
>But touch this sparingly, as 'twere far off,
>Because you know, my lord, my mother lives.
>
>Richard III, Act 3 Scene 5.

I haven't looked at Richard III since high school nearly 30 years ago
- and wow, I can well imagine how those last two lines went down in
Elizabethan England given who Elizabeth's mother was...
k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2004-01-04 13:50:44 UTC
Permalink
In article <bt7d3s$l08$***@sparta.btinternet.com>,
***@btinternet.com (Gordon Davie) wrote:

> for more details, including a complete family tree!

Shame that this is completely wrong. The current Royal family traces
it's claim to the Tudors not Edward. Henry VII claimed the Crown by
right of conquest and his own ancestry.

Ken Young
***@cix.co.uk

Those who cover themselves with martial glory
frequently go in need of any other garment. (Bramah)
Gordon Davie
2004-01-04 14:08:45 UTC
Permalink
Hell's teeth, I wasn't trying to start a brush war! All I did was report on
a TV show I'd watched that I thought was on-topic for the group. Please
don't have a go at me if you disagree with the points they raised!

Though to answer a couple: the thing about a premature birth was covered:
the records did not indicate that Edward was unusually small (given the
infant mortality rate at the time such a thing would surely have been
noted).

Also, the passage from Shakespeare was quoted, but I got the impression that
it was merely vicious rumour at the time, with no evidence to back it up.
Okay, I agree that there's still no hard evidence, merely circumstantial.
But as I said, I'm just passing on what was said in the show.

I'm now ducking back below the parapet.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland

"Slipped the surly bonds of Earth...to touch the face of God"
AlanWilliams
2004-01-04 21:09:03 UTC
Permalink
"Gordon Davie" <***@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bt96pd$mfs$***@sparta.btinternet.com...
> Hell's teeth, I wasn't trying to start a brush war! All I did was report
on
> a TV show I'd watched that I thought was on-topic for the group. Please
> don't have a go at me if you disagree with the points they raised!
>
> Though to answer a couple: the thing about a premature birth was covered:
> the records did not indicate that Edward was unusually small (given the
> infant mortality rate at the time such a thing would surely have been
> noted).

Not necessarily and it could be the reason for the lack of ceremony for his
baptism i.e. he was expected to die soon. It may be worth checking how
quickly he was baptised.

> Also, the passage from Shakespeare was quoted, but I got the impression
that
> it was merely vicious rumour at the time, with no evidence to back it up.
> Okay, I agree that there's still no hard evidence, merely circumstantial.
> But as I said, I'm just passing on what was said in the show.
>
> I'm now ducking back below the parapet.
> --
> Gordon Davie
> Edinburgh, Scotland
>
> "Slipped the surly bonds of Earth...to touch the face of God"

Alan
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
2004-01-05 15:21:35 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 14:08:45 +0000 (UTC), "Gordon Davie"
<***@btinternet.com> wrote:

>Hell's teeth, I wasn't trying to start a brush war! All I did was report on
>a TV show I'd watched that I thought was on-topic for the group. Please
>don't have a go at me if you disagree with the points they raised!

Well, no offence, but Tony Robinson has some of his own republican
axes to grind. Although why the legality or otherwise of Edward IV's
succession should concern a republican is a bit of a mystery to me.
The real purpose was to allow Tony to dig up a nice beer-drinking,
barbie-cooking republican Aussie to demonstrate who he would prefer as
the current British monarch.

>Also, the passage from Shakespeare was quoted, but I got the impression that
>it was merely vicious rumour at the time, with no evidence to back it up.
>Okay, I agree that there's still no hard evidence, merely circumstantial.
>But as I said, I'm just passing on what was said in the show.
>
>I'm now ducking back below the parapet.

The real question for me is why republicans would have such an
Epsteinian obsession with the exact biological minutae of 15th-century
succession, when blood descent was only one factor in the sordid
political reality of whoever got their grubby and bloody paws on the
crown. The bit he ignored is that the divine right of king went west
when Parliament chopped Chaz One's head off, and Parliament defined
legal succession ever since.

Gavin Bailey
Phil Edwards
2004-01-08 09:39:05 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 15:21:35 +0000, The Revolution Will Not Be
Televised <***@whackme.gavnem.fslife.co.uk> wrote:

>The real question for me is why republicans would have such an
>Epsteinian obsession with the exact biological minutae of 15th-century
>succession, when blood descent was only one factor in the sordid
>political reality of whoever got their grubby and bloody paws on the
>crown. The bit he ignored is that the divine right of king went west
>when Parliament chopped Chaz One's head off, and Parliament defined
>legal succession ever since.

I can hear it now.

"...but, if *this document* is correct, it would appear that the last
*legitimate* King of England was executed in 1649, and this country is
*in reality* a Commonwealth ruled by a Parliament of the Saints!"

P "or maybe that's just the House of Lords" E
--
Phil Edwards ***@amroth.zetnet.co.uk
"This group is dominated by weird leftist
social studies teacher types." - John Freck
Coreleus Corneleus
2004-01-05 03:37:07 UTC
Permalink
"Gordon Davie" <***@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:<bt7d3s$l08$***@sparta.btinternet.com>...

> Just watched a fascinating TV programme presented by Tony Robinson (better
> known perhaps as 'Baldrick' in the Blackadder series). While researching for
> a previous programme on the murder of the Princes in the Tower, Robinson

Who are the 'Princes in the Tower'?

Looking through Durant's 'Reformation', Chapt. V 'England in the
Fifteenth Century', part I 'Kings', I would guess that they would be
probably be Henry VI, Edward V, and Richard, duke of York (son of
Edward IV and brother of Edward V, not father of Edward IV).

Then again, I am not sure of the number, circumstances, or phenomenon
involved.

Does anyone have any information or links on the subject?
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...