Queen Elizabeth isn't Britain's legitimate monarch


Murphy
Conservative
#1
The real king lives in Australia. Wait until you hear what he has to say about the Queen and the UK. I can't really blame him. It's hosted by Sir Tony Robinson, who isn't a real Kuh-Niggett, cuz Liz ain't the real queen.

wwwyoutubecomwatchvSG4Ec9nEwwk

 
PoliticalNick
Free Thinker
+1
#2
You are only just figuring out a woman of Germanic and Greek heritage is not the legitimate monarch of England under the laws of succession.....time to catch up. One of the reasons Charles and Diana were forced to marry was to try and bring legitimacy back to the House of Windsor through Diana's heritage which has been in the British nobility since before the Dark Ages. The Windsors were once Saxe-Coburg & Gotha and The Queen's grandfather was of the house of Wettin directly from Germany.
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by MurphyView Post

The real king lives in Australia. Wait until you hear what he has to say about the Queen and the UK. I can't really blame him. It's hosted by Sir Tony Robinson, who isn't a real Kuh-Niggett, cuz Liz ain't the real queen.

wwwyoutubecomwatchvSG4Ec9nEwwk

Baldrick!
 
Angstrom
No Party Affiliation
#4
Might is really right it would seem
 
personal touch
Bloc Québécois
+1
#5
Crazy
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#6
It's scandal enough to make the mortal remains of King Arthur roll over in his crypt.
 
damngrumpy
No Party Affiliation
#7
The real line should be from the Stuarts and Mary Queen Of Scots but the
folks from the Tudor line killed her
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#8
It means we're ruled by bastards.

We already knew that. next story please
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

...Charles and Diana were forced to marry...

Hehehehe...It just keeps getting better
 
Murphy
Conservative
+1
#10
Some of you obviously didn't watch the show. Where the train came off the tracks was back when the Plantagenets were still kicking around in the late 1400s. Robinson notes that ascending to the throne is tenuous at best and that there really has never been a divine right of kings.

But I suppose it doesn't matter. King Abdulla Mohammad Abdulla will soon rule there anyway.



What's old will be new again. The only question is, will they start using the Tower of London once more to behead naughty Britishers, or just lop them off in the streets?
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#11
You'll be getting real oil money for your daughters, now not that scrip underwritten by pottery.
 
Murphy
Conservative
#12
That seems to be the case.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#13
So, who is more legitimate? Is he/she still alive?
 
Murphy
Conservative
#14
The legitimate heir is tracked down at the end. He is a fellow who left England in 1960 and moved to Oz. He was aware of having royal blood, but not that he should actually be sitting on the throne. Robinson showed him the research. They used the London firm who ensures the royals are properly titled, explain the rules of succession to government, etc. It's in the video. It's all documented.

Yes, they show the real royal family toward the end of the show. They ask him if he would take back the throne, thoughts on how his family was robbed of their heritage, etc.
 
Bar Sinister
No Party Affiliation
#15
Does anyone really give a damn as to who is the head of a completely outmoded institution that was created by murderers and thieves?
 
Murphy
Conservative
#16
Perhaps if you watched the video, you would not have posted what you did. Does anyone really give a damn? No.

Robinson's presentation was entertaining and factual. It has a great twist at the end.

wwwyoutubecomwatchvIB0SxXTRUI

 
Ludlow
No Party Affiliation
#17
it's good to be king~ Mel Brooks
 
Blackleaf
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

You are only just figuring out a woman of Germanic and Greek heritage is not the legitimate monarch of England under the laws of succession.....

Yes she is. After her uncle King Edward VIII abdicated in 1936 and her father became King George VI she became the next in line to the Throne, according to the lawful line of succession.

Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpyView Post

The real line should be from the Stuarts and Mary Queen Of Scots

Elizabeth I was the rightful Queen of England as stipulated in her father Henry VIII's will, which said that his son Edward should be king after him and that if he died with no heirs then his elder daughter Mary should then be queen and that if she died with no heirs then his younger daughter Elizabeth should be queen. And that is what came to pass. Therefore, Mary, Queen of Scots' claim to Elizabeth's throne was, therefore, wrong, as stipulated in the will of her great-uncle Henry VIII, which was passed into English law.

Quote:

folks from the Tudor line killed her

She was executed by her cousin, onced removed, Elizabeth I because Mary rather stupidly got herself involved in a Catholic plot to overthrow Elizabeth and put Mary on the English throne.

That's not the fault of the Tudors. That's the fault of Mary and the conspirators.
Last edited by Blackleaf; Jan 10th, 2017 at 06:39 AM..
 
Murphy
Conservative
+1
#19
What a moron. Better learn some history, you oafish Brit.

Now I know why a Brit is posting about inaccurate British history on Canadian Content. His own countrymen won't have him.
 
Blackleaf
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by MurphyView Post

What a moron. Better learn some history, you oafish Brit.

It's all true. What parts do you reckon are inaccurate?
 
Murphy
Conservative
#21
Time to pay attention to your betters, starting with Sir Tony.
 
Blackleaf
+1
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by MurphyView Post

Time to pay attention to your betters, starting with Sir Tony.

Not only has a number of historians since challenged the conclusions reached by the programme but that Australian fellow is now dead.

"Britain's Real Monarch" and more pulp fiction nonsense...

Posted by The Monarchist at 8:24 PM . Wednesday, April 6, 2005
Labels: Royal Sovereigns

THE THEORY ABOUT the illegitimacy of Britain's monarchs since Edward IV has been around since..., well, Edward IV. It is amazing how succeeding generations of quack historians - most recently, that diminutive manservant from Black Adder who is pushing a treatment of the matter on the History Channel - "discover" it and attempt to flog it to the (increasingly indifferent) masses. The whole idea of five centuries of illegitimate monarchs is, in actual fact, bunk of the first rank, for reasons which I shall explain here.



The conjecture that Edward IV was a bastard was active in his lifetime, and there is, in fact, reason to believe that the conjecture may have been well-founded. Some recent scholarship suggests strongly that Richard, duke of York, was on campaign in France and nowhere near his wife, Cicely Neville, at any time when Edward could plausibly have been conceived. The record indicates that this possibility was widely whispered in Edward's lifetime, and that Edward's supporters (and ironically, the Tudor monarchs) fought actively to disprove the rumours.

All this matters, in principle, because Edward's claim to the throne derived from the descendency of his father, Richard of York, from Edward III (through his grandfather Edmund, duke of York, third son of Edward III; and his father Richard, earl of Cambridge, who was attainted of high treason by Henry V and executed in 1415). In many respects, Edward's claim to the throne was on the same order of strength as that of Henry VI, who descended from the second son of Edward III, John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster. As we all know, the fact of this strong claim, which provoked Richard's persecution at the hands of Henry VI's wife, Margaret of Anjou, touched off the Wars of the Roses. But I digress...

If Edward had, in fact, been born of a father other than Richard, he would not have been of the royal blood, and would therefore have been entirely without a legitimate claim to the throne. More to the point, however - given that Edward's brother, Richard III, who undoubtedly was legitimate and therefore definitely of the royal blood, was killed on Bosworth Field by Henry (VII) Tudor in 1485 - are the implications with respect to the Tudor dynasty. Henry VIII's royal blood derived in part from that of his mother, Elizabeth, who was the daughter of Edward IV. The theorists point out that the loss of this link would upset the rightful order of precedence to the succession.

Henry VIII was, however, also of the royal blood in his father’s right – his father was great-great-grandson of John of Gaunt. The bastardy of Edward, even if fact, would therefore not sever the blood continuity of Britain's monarchs from Henry VI to his Tudor successors on the throne. Let me now come to the point of my argument, which is three-fold: first, that the potential bastardy of Edward cannot now be lawfully established; second, that Edward’s bastardy, even if proved, would not substantially affect the legitimacy of Tudor and subsequent claims to the throne; and third, that even if Edward had been a bastard, and even if that bastardy had in fact severed the blood continuity of the Crown, it would not finally matter in the slightest.

It is self-evident that the information available to us today is insufficient to rule on a point of fact that is 563 years in the past, especially on an issue of such vast consequence. The evidence was insufficient at the time, and has been so considered ever since.

Second: the Tudor dynasty’s blood links to the Plantagenets derived from both sides of Henry VIII's parentage. So issues of precedence aside, continuity of the royal blood would not have been fully interrupted by Edward’s supposed bastardy. And what significance can we meaningfully attach to such second-order issues of precedence, in a century that saw the Wars of the Roses - the storm sown by the usurpation of the Crown of Richard II by Henry (IV) Bolingbroke – pass the Crown three times between competing branches of the same family?

Which brings me to my final point. The right of kings, within the span and scope of British history and law, does not derive exclusively from birth, but from the fact of rule which may, under exceptional circumstances, be established by means other than rightful precedence or even of blood inheritance. Such circumstances obtained, for example, in the cases of Henry Bolingbroke, Henry Tudor, and William the Conqueror. In the latter case, the right to the throne was established and recognized by outright force of conquest, irrespective of any (in fact extant) blood ties to a prior king.

These arguments are irrefutably and completely vindicated and upheld by over five centuries of British history - those centuries establishing fact and precedent that by themselves are absolutely unassailable under British constitutional law.

So much for the dime-novel bunk. God save the Queen.

"Britain's Real Monarch" and more pulp fiction nonsense... (external - login to view)
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
+2
#23  Top Rated Post
The rightful king is whoever is powerful enough to hold the title. WHo slept with who several hundred years ago is irrelevant. Just like the monarchy.
 
Blackleaf
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

The rightful king is whoever is powerful enough to hold the title. WHo slept with who several hundred years ago is irrelevant. Just like the monarchy.

The British and Canadian monarchies are much more relevant than the British and Canadian republics (England, Scotland and Ireland were once a republic but the people hated it).
 
PoliticalNick
Free Thinker
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

It's all true. What parts do you reckon are inaccurate?

That a Will can overturn the laws of succession.
 
Blackleaf
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

That a Will can overturn the laws of succession.

Henry VIII's will determined the next three monarchs after him - Edward VI, Mary I, Elizabeth I.

It's one reason why the populace supported Mary when Lady Jane Grey usurped her Throne for nine days and Jane's subsequent beheading at the age of 16 - Mary was the rightful Queen according to her father's will.
 
coldstream
#27
As far as i am aware The current senior heir-general of King James II of England and VII of Scotland is Franz, Duke of Bavaria. This represents the legitimate Jacobite and Catholic lineage of the British Throne. Elizabeth is the Anglican Pretender. Franz' family was notable for its opposition to the Nazis, for which Franz was sent to a Concentration Camp as child.
 
Blackleaf
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstreamView Post

As far as i am aware The current senior heir-general of King James II of England and VII of Scotland is Franz, Duke of Bavaria. This represents the legitimate Jacobite and Catholic lineage of the British Throne. Elizabeth is the Anglican Pretender. Franz' family was notable for its opposition to the Nazis, for which Franz was sent to a Concentration Camp as child.

James II was ousted from the Throne due to his persecution of Scottish Presbyterians (known as The Killing Time); his support of Absolute Monarchy and the Divine Right of Kings; and his Catholic policies which alienated the majority of his subjects. He didn't learn from his father Charles I's and his great-grandmother Mary Queen of Scots's mistakes and was lucky that he wasn't also beheaded like them.

The Stuarts were a bad bunch, with the exception of the last Stuart monarch Queen Anne. It was right to get rid of them.

And Elizabeth II is no pretender. She is the lawful monarch according to the Line of Succession.
 
PoliticalNick
Free Thinker
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

James II was ousted from the Throne due to his persecution of Scottish Presbyterians (known as The Killing Time); his support of Absolute Monarchy and the Divine Right of Kings; and his Catholic policies which alienated the majority of his subjects. He didn't learn from his father Charles I's and his great-grandmother Mary Queen of Scots's mistakes and was lucky that he wasn't also beheaded like them.

The Stuarts were a bad bunch, with the exception of the last Stuart monarch Queen Anne. It was right to get rid of them.

And Elizabeth II is no pretender. She is the lawful monarch according to the Line of Succession.

Elizabeth is a stupid old c*nt clinging to an outmoded historical system of people with money and some hired swords claiming authority over every other human. All monarchies should be abolished and all their wealth distributed to the citizens.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
+1 / -1
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

Elizabeth is a stupid old c*nt clinging to an outmoded historical system of people with money and some hired swords claiming authority over every other human. All monarchies should be abolished and all their wealth distributed to the citizens.


Now you are starting to act ignorant and stupid, Nick! I think she may be clinging to life, but her job lasts for the duration. I don't believe she volunteered for it in the first place. As far as I know she's done a good job.
 
no new posts