smotherb Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 Nice to see you join the discussion on royal b4 stards, Harry. Didn't know Ginger Harry was a member of TV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number 3 Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 British people have no problems discussing the goings on in my country. It's almost expected is it not ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seastallion Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 Nice to see you join the discussion on royal b4 stards, Harry. Didn't know Ginger Harry was a member of TV Finally someone got it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puipuitom Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 so ? ? When they did not do a good job for the last generations, they would be out of the throne long ago. I am Dutch, and.. do not give a damn for the "bloodline" of our royal house, as long as.. the present... does the job he / ( she ) is hired in for, Looking to the support in Netherlands, the royals did a good job the last 125 years: from queen-mother Emma ( 1890) via queen Wilhelmina, Juliana, Beatrix, and now king Willem-Alexander. And I must say: his from origin Argentine wife, Maxima, proves, a blood line is worth nothing, but a good sense of what brings people together... is worth a lot more. Advantage of an inherited crown: the next gets a 35+ years of training, no discussion / fighting between the heirs as we saw in history so often. Power... they do not have , only influence, which they have to earn. Till now: well done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tuskfish Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 I thought Stannis Baratheon was the true heir to the throne? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aboctok Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 It's great to be able to discuss such things, isn't it But that's the style among barbarians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yardrunner Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 there was a full investigation into this a few years ago and it was found that the TRUE heir to the throne was actually a Brit living in OZ who was a sheep farmer (a huge number of sheep) the investigators offered to fly him to the UK as part of the documentry...he declined The Royal as thery are now have as much right as my stray cat...the name Windsor was only intruduced in around 1938 as they were crapppping themselves of a British backlash with war against GERMANY their cousins. The Queen really gave up soverenty in 1970 or 1972? to brussels as she signed the agreement of laws from Brussels would over power uk laws... so many have no idea what the queen of england controls ...its basicallty the world (crown est and holdings is really run by a group of approx 40 and Lord Rothschild is the main rep) The name was changed from Saxe Coburg Gotha to Windsor in 1917 due to ill feeling against people and businesses with German names during The First World War Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trentham Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 Elizabeth is not Britain's queen anyway..................................... By Jonathan Pearlman, Sydney 7:06PM BST 03 Jul 2012 Abney-Hastings, who was 69, was widowed but has several children Michael Abney-Hastings, or "King Michael", was a British-born self-proclaimed republican who made international headlines in 2004 when a Channel 4 documentary suggested that King Edward IV was conceived illegitimately. It said the crown should have been passed down the Plantagenet line – ending at Abney-Hastings. The reluctant, would-be king was born in Sussex and went to school at Ampleforth College in Yorkshire but moved as a teenager with his family to the small Australian town of Jerilderie, population 768, about 400 miles from Sydney. His "claim" to the throne first became apparent after the documentary, Britain's Real Monarch, put forward a thesis by a historian, Dr Michael Jones, who said King Edward, who reigned from 1461 to 1483, was conceived when his parents were 100 miles apart. At the time, according to a document unearthed by Dr Jones in a library in Rouen, Edward's supposed father, Richard, 3rd Duke of York, was said to be fighting the French near Paris, while his mother, Lady Cecily Neville, was at court in Rouen. Furthermore, Lady Cecily was said to be spending a great deal of time with a local archer named Blaybourne and the two were rumoured to be having an affair. King Louis XI of France is said to have once claimed about King Edward: "His name is not King Edward – everybody knows his name is Blaybourne." It was therefore proposed that Abney-Hastings, the direct descendant of George Plantagenet, 1st Duke of Clarence and brother of Edward IV, should be the rightful King. When the claim was raised with Abney-Hastings at his farm in Jerilderie, he said he had been elected to the local shire council and would prefer to focus on his duties as councillor. "When they told me I was surprised all right," he said. "But I don't think it will worry us too much. Titles don't mean much out here and I have no intention of leaving Jerilderie ... Why would you want to be King anyway? They can't do anything without someone on their back." Abney-Hastings, who was 69, was widowed but has several children. He once joked that his eldest son would have to wait until he died before pressing a claim to the throne. "He'll have to wait," he said. "It's not available till I go." He had been battling a debilitating illness and had been in and out of hospital in the lead-up to his death on Saturday. Though he did not budge from his support for Australia to become a republic, he did once note that his friends and family stood up and broke into God Save the King at a Christmas dinner shortly after the documentary was broadcast. The new potential heir to the throne, Simon Abney-Hastings, the 15th Earl of Loudon, is a 37-year-old bachelor who works for a fabrics company in the town of Wangaratta, about 140 miles from Melbourne. He said he was aware he was "possibly" the rightful king but would prefer not to take the throne. "I have always known about this – I have lived it," he said. "It does make you think about how things could be different. I am quite happy with how things have turned out. I have made my own life." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaurene Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 There is no blood line between him and the queen (House of Windsor) The House of Windsor is the royal house of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms. It was founded by King George V by royal proclamation on 17 July 1917, when he changed the name of the British Royal Family from the German Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (a branch of the House of Wettin) to the English Windsor, due to the anti-German sentiment in the British Empire during World War I.[1] The most prominent member of the House of Windsor is its head, Queen Elizabeth II, who is the reigning monarch of 16 Commonwealth realms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maidee Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 do this in a certain country and you get 15,30,45 years in prison Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morakot Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 There is no blood line between him and the queen (House of Windsor) So you didn't read the article than. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/dec/02/king-richard-iii-dna-cousins-queen-ancestry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zydeco Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 Turn out the squatters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Beale Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 British people have no problems discussing the goings on in my country. Why shouldn't we discuss one of our own creations 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peecee Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 HM the Queen has no problem with her Realm (or the Commonwealth) discussing the way she heads them. As a constitutional Monarch she leaves politics to her ministers, who themselves are subject to the will of the people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masuk Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 The illegitimacy of British royalty is no surprise to antipodeans, reflected in the common endearing description of those from that region. I seem to remember it has something to do with being a POMMY (POME as in red cheeks of an apple). so me mum told me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masuk Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 There is no blood line between him and the queen (House of Windsor) So you didn't read the article than. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/dec/02/king-richard-iii-dna-cousins-queen-ancestry "than" what? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve187 Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 (edited) Nice to see you join the discussion on royal b4 stards, Harry. Didn't know Ginger Harry was a member of TV Finally someone got it. if anyone's DNA needed to be checked......... Edited December 3, 2014 by steve187 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post cookee68 Posted December 3, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted December 3, 2014 Are we allowed to discuss this? Surely this is the British people's skeletons. It doesn't serve well to point..... As a Brit myself we don't give a toss who talks about what, we leave that to the countries who restrict you from speech, we just don't care 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattyc1957 Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 Masuk, I always thought the term of endearment 'Pom' originated back in the day when everything in the early Aus colony was stamped with the acronym 'POHM', which stood for 'Property of His/Her Majesty'. Or was that 'Prisoner OHM'? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
draftvader Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 (edited) Are we allowed to discuss this? Surely this is the British people's skeletons. It doesn't serve well to point.....As a Brit myself we don't give a toss who talks about what, we leave that to the countries who restrict you from speech, we just don't careI'm a Brit. I thought all the other Brits would have caught the irony. Edited December 3, 2014 by draftvader Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peecee Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 Are we allowed to discuss this? Surely this is the British people's skeletons. It doesn't serve well to point.....As a Brit myself we don't give a toss who talks about what, we leave that to the countries who restrict you from speech, we just don't careI'm a Brit. I thought all the other Brits would have caught the irony. We Brits are free to choose to catch or drop the irony as we see fit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATF Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 Richard III was killed at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485 the last British Monarch to die in Battle. Famous for the quote "A horse a horse my Kingdom for a horse". No one gave him a horse and he was battered to death by the forces of Henry VII who started the Tudor Dynasty. Father of Henry VIII and Grandfather to Queen Elizabeth I. The Tudors were of Welsh descent and created the greatest period in British history prior to Queen Victoria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bra Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 "So, all the nasty words about Obama, Abbott, et al, are illegal." "Obama I do not know about but Abbott is not and I hope never will be a head of state the arrogant bast,.d and dick head he is." Queen Elizabeth is also the Queen of Australia and therefore the Head of State. She is represented in Australia by the Governor General, who is appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister. Although I never voted for Julia Gillard and her party I found that many of the remarks made about her were insulting to her and her position as the PM. I find your insulting remarks about the current PM equally objectionable. If you don't like him then don't vote for him or his party - that's the way a democracy works. Incidentally I am a republican and hope the next King of the UK does not become the King of Australia. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harrry Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 (edited) "So, all the nasty words about Obama, Abbott, et al, are illegal." "Obama I do not know about but Abbott is not and I hope never will be a head of state the arrogant bast,.d and dick head he is." Queen Elizabeth is also the Queen of Australia and therefore the Head of State. She is represented in Australia by the Governor General, who is appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister. Although I never voted for Julia Gillard and her party I found that many of the remarks made about her were insulting to her and her position as the PM. I find your insulting remarks about the current PM equally objectionable. If you don't like him then don't vote for him or his party - that's the way a democracy works. Incidentally I am a republican and hope the next King of the UK does not become the King of Australia. I have every right to say what I think of Abbott especially as it is true. I could add lying to that statement if you like. LM only protects Heads of State and as you have clearly acknowledged he is not one. I believe though that the US President is Head of State of the US and is probably covered. Edited December 3, 2014 by harrry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookee68 Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 Are we allowed to discuss this? Surely this is the British people's skeletons. It doesn't serve well to point.....As a Brit myself we don't give a toss who talks about what, we leave that to the countries who restrict you from speech, we just don't careI'm a Brit. I thought all the other Brits would have caught the irony. I did, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rak sa_ngop Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 Richard III was killed at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485 the last British Monarch to die in Battle. Famous for the quote "A horse a horse my Kingdom for a horse". No one gave him a horse and he was battered to death by the forces of Henry VII who started the Tudor Dynasty. Father of Henry VIII and Grandfather to Queen Elizabeth I. The Tudors were of Welsh descent and created the greatest period in British history prior to Queen Victoria. I am now reading 'The King's Deception' by Steve Berry. This novel suggests that Elizabeth daughter of Henry VIII actually died as an infant. In order to cover up the death, a girl of the same age was sought in the neighbouring village. All that the nanny could find was an infant boy, so in fact Elizabeth I who never married and had no children was actually a man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bangon04 Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 there was a full investigation into this a few years ago and it was found that the TRUE heir to the throne was actually a Brit living in OZ who was a sheep farmer (a huge number of sheep) the investigators offered to fly him to the UK as part of the documentry...he declined The Royal as thery are now have as much right as my stray cat...the name Windsor was only intruduced in around 1938 as they were crapppping themselves of a British backlash with war against GERMANY their cousins. The Queen really gave up soverenty in 1970 or 1972? to brussels as she signed the agreement of laws from Brussels would over power uk laws... so many have no idea what the queen of england controls ...its basicallty the world (crown est and holdings is really run by a group of approx 40 and Lord Rothschild is the main rep) The name was changed from Saxe Coburg Gotha to Windsor in 1917 due to ill feeling against people and businesses with German names during The First World War indeed, and therefore any tenuous link with Richard III or any monarch before the House of Hanover is mainly a red herring, given that William of ORANGE was invited to take over the English throne , and he certainly shared little or no blood with the Stuarts or the Tudors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard W Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 (edited) indeed, and therefore any tenuous link with Richard III or any monarch before the House of Hanover is mainly a red herring, given that William of ORANGE was invited to take over the English throne , and he certainly shared little or no blood with the Stuarts or the Tudors.William III was a nephew of Charles II and James II - his mother was their elder sister. Edited December 3, 2014 by Richard W Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Somtamnication Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 I shall claim my right to the throne............ in the morrow!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard W Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 Since Richards identity was proved by his mitochondrial DNA, handed down in an unbroken chain through the female line from his sister to two living relatives, the conclusion is stark: there is a break in the claimed line of Beaufort descent, what the scientists described as a false paternity event, which may also affect the ancestry of their distant cousins, the Windsors.The other possibility is that the cuckold was in the line of York. Indeed, if you look in the Wikipedia article (last edited in May 2014) for Richard III's paternal grandfather, Richard of Conisburgh, Earl of Cambridge, you'll find it suggested that he was not actually the son of Edmund of Langley, Duke of York (5th son of Edward III). If this is the case, it matters very little, for the claim of the house of York chiefly depends on their descent from Lionel of Antwerp, 3rd son of Edward III. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now