News1 min ago
So The Queen Is No Longer Queen
24 Answers
According to researchers on Richard III, having found extraneous DNA in his bones suggesting that Edward III or his son John of Gaunt had some illicit affair and progeny....the thinking that it was Edward, as Gaunt married for love and the marriage was, apparently, a very successful one.
So allowing for the inevitable ascerbic remarks from the AB anti-royalists, "Out you go, Liz Windsor, and you too, Chuck and Bill, to become commoners à la fruity Sue Townshend and "Arise, King John II" - aka Duke of Somerset number 19 and off the legit line.
Interesting eh?
http://
So allowing for the inevitable ascerbic remarks from the AB anti-royalists, "Out you go, Liz Windsor, and you too, Chuck and Bill, to become commoners à la fruity Sue Townshend and "Arise, King John II" - aka Duke of Somerset number 19 and off the legit line.
Interesting eh?
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by DTCwordfan. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
As a staunch Ricardian, I have followed this with interest - but the Queen's claim to the throne is based on more than that particular bloodline I think. We have to remember the invited William of Orange and his bloodline. I am by no means an expert on all of this and very much look forward to posts from those who are more well versed than I.
Despite all the media attention to the royal bloodline, and to the sequence of those said to be in line to the throne, it's all meaningless. Parliament is sovereign, and the next monarch is whoever Parliament says it is to be. Yes, in practice and since George I, they've gone with whoever's legitimately next in line, but legally they're not bound to.
I say that, as they have approval on the line of succession but once that is in place that's it as the line of descent has authority too, unless the monarch is mad, commits major crime or is grossly guilty of misgovernment. It therefore a 'push and pull' or checks and balance as laid down by the Bill of Rights (1689) and the Act of Settlement (1701).
I saw a similar article today DTC - fascinating. It has long been the story that John of Gaunt was actually the son of a Ghent woman. When Phillipa gave birth to what would have been Ed III's 4th child it was a girl and Phillipa accidentally rolled on the child and killed it. She had a male child smuggled in and presented it to her husband as his son. This was rumoured in JoG's unpopular days. (Btw, he was actually married x3 - 1 to Blanche of Lancaster who died of plague at Castle Rising, I think. Second to Constanza of Castile and Thirdly to Katherine Swynford - widow of Hugh Swynford of Kettlethorpe and mother of John's four children - it is through her that Henry VII is descended). Marriages 1 and 3 were both love matches.
I'm inclined to agree with Jourdain tho, it's irrelevant since the constitutional monarchy was created in 1685 (ish).
I guess we will never know which bloke was cuckolded (although I'd love to!)
I'm inclined to agree with Jourdain tho, it's irrelevant since the constitutional monarchy was created in 1685 (ish).
I guess we will never know which bloke was cuckolded (although I'd love to!)
All thrones are available to those powerful, ruthless, persuasive enough to grab them and destroy the opposition. It matters little someone didn't know who's father was who. Contrary to the fantasy, nothing special is carried in the blood. Neither is a royal so considered because of divine approval. Folk need to watch that forelock tugging.
welll we have a good idea that the dominant porphyria gene comes from Mary Queen of Scots - so that means the naughtiness must be between birth of John of Gaunt c 1350 and birth of Mary c 1550 dunnit ?
wh is OK and narrows it down by 500 y
Barmaid story cant be true - because we know the maternal line ( mt DNA ) is OK.
Elizabeth Woodville wife of Edward IV was a bit of a one as well according to the Daily Mail of the time....
Bert's act that says Parliament can appoint whomever they like is the Act of Succession 1701 which says that the next heir after Anne will be Sophia of Hanover or her successors.... - disinheriting 43 better claimants ( who were Roman )
wh is OK and narrows it down by 500 y
Barmaid story cant be true - because we know the maternal line ( mt DNA ) is OK.
Elizabeth Woodville wife of Edward IV was a bit of a one as well according to the Daily Mail of the time....
Bert's act that says Parliament can appoint whomever they like is the Act of Succession 1701 which says that the next heir after Anne will be Sophia of Hanover or her successors.... - disinheriting 43 better claimants ( who were Roman )
-- answer removed --
Peter, the suggestion in the research is that the problem lies with Edward III and John of Gaunt, and more likely the former as JoG had a very sound marriage with his wife based on love and trust rather than princely politics of taking out/neutralising an enemy or potential one through nuptial alliance. Therefore, I don't think that you can dismiss Barmaid's analysis and experience in the field just like that - and given that Alison Weir also picked up on it.
Barmaid, do you have any angles that Weir didn't publish as that would justify your own tome.....my only historical publication to date has been a paper on Cornish dovecotes, not exactly a major contribution to the understanding of UK historical and political machinations.....
Barmaid, do you have any angles that Weir didn't publish as that would justify your own tome.....my only historical publication to date has been a paper on Cornish dovecotes, not exactly a major contribution to the understanding of UK historical and political machinations.....
