Go Back  Fodor's Travel Talk Forums > Destinations > Europe
Reload this Page >

British monarchy - question of succession

British monarchy - question of succession

Old Aug 14th, 2013, 04:42 AM
  #101  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 20,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
At least no-one tried to cast Stallone as George.
PatrickLondon is offline  
Old Aug 14th, 2013, 05:34 AM
  #102  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Josser: Really just one eejit. And by the constant posting and claims of universal knowledge you can assume he is one of the millions of unemployed 'murcans.
TorontoSteven is offline  
Old Aug 14th, 2013, 06:23 AM
  #103  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If it's the eejit I'm thinking of, actually he's Canadian. ;-)
Heimdall is offline  
Old Aug 14th, 2013, 06:23 AM
  #104  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
And, no, I don't mean you.
Heimdall is offline  
Old Aug 14th, 2013, 06:24 AM
  #105  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 761
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yeah, I left prince Harry off my list. He's after the infant Prince George and before Prince Andrew. My apologies.
lauren_s_kahn is offline  
Old Aug 14th, 2013, 07:19 AM
  #106  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Heimdall: I believe he is from Michigan.
TorontoSteven is offline  
Old Aug 14th, 2013, 07:54 AM
  #107  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 20,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Somewhere, I'm sure I've seen a site where some obsessive person has listed the line of succession (according to them) - or at least descent, since it includes all the ineligibles: up to about 2000 people, IIRC.
PatrickLondon is offline  
Old Aug 14th, 2013, 08:28 AM
  #108  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,989
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thursdaysd, thank for the link to the article about succession - informative.
latedaytraveler is offline  
Old Aug 14th, 2013, 10:18 AM
  #109  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,585
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I once heard a talk by a librarian at the National Library of Scotland. She said that in the summer they have a steady stream of Stuart pretenders. If they are told that there are no papers proving their claims, they say that the librarians are part of the Hanoverian conspiracy.
I still like the man who wrote to the College of Heralds for assistance with his family tree. "It might help you to know that I am descended from Norman the Conqueror"
MissPrism is offline  
Old Aug 14th, 2013, 11:26 AM
  #110  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I like that too, MissPrism! Perhaps he was descended from this not so royal gentleman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_...st_(footballer)
Heimdall is offline  
Old Aug 14th, 2013, 12:31 PM
  #111  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 78,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
where in the succesion of eejits do the corgis fit in - they are certainly as fit as most royals it would seem - doing only excatly as told or trained to do and have not one iota of free will in anything - their whole lives being orchestrated by protocol - Princess Di was the main exception and she was killed off by the M-% if Harrods owner is to be believed.
PalenQ is offline  
Old Aug 14th, 2013, 12:58 PM
  #112  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Poor old former Harrods owner — he tried so hard to be accepted by the establishment. Bought Harrods, Punch magazine (which failed), a Scottish castle, Fulham Football Club, and even thought he might one day be step-grandad to the future king. He still couldn't get a British passport.
Heimdall is offline  
Old Aug 14th, 2013, 01:07 PM
  #113  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
That pesky good character requirement...
Nonconformist is offline  
Old Aug 14th, 2013, 03:14 PM
  #114  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 24,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Lauren,

Is the change to males-first being made retroactive to include Prince Andrews's daughters? Otherwise, how do they figure up high in the line of succession?
Underhill is offline  
Old Aug 14th, 2013, 04:21 PM
  #115  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 12,223
Received 26 Likes on 4 Posts
TorontoSteven on Aug 14, 13 at 6:34am
..."millions of....'murcans."

Not to be confused with merkins.
MmePerdu is offline  
Old Aug 14th, 2013, 05:16 PM
  #116  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,090
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Apparently there is some doubt as to whether or not Queen Elizabeth is the rightful monarch:

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/07/06/...h-throne-dies/

I watched a 40 minute you tube link a few days ago outlining the theory and interviewing "Lord Michael" but mysteriously, I can't get it to play now. I'm thinking something hinkey is going on.
Trophywife007 is offline  
Old Aug 14th, 2013, 07:15 PM
  #117  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,989
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Trophywife007 - interesting story. Who knows?
latedaytraveler is offline  
Old Aug 14th, 2013, 08:41 PM
  #118  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,090
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I finally got the link to work, I hope. The idea is that Edward IV had to have been illegitimate because his father, according to letters at that time, was off at war and was not around for the conception. Therefore, everyone from Henry VII onward is a usurper and Michael I, who moved to Australia in the 1960's should have been king.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5fIwLo1Trs
Trophywife007 is offline  
Old Aug 14th, 2013, 10:59 PM
  #119  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 20,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
>> The idea is that Edward IV had to have been illegitimate because his father, according to letters at that time, was off at war and was not around for the conception. Therefore, everyone from Henry VII onward is a usurper and Michael I, who moved to Australia in the 1960's should have been king.<<

Tony Robinson's underlying point was the absurdity of the hereditary principle when "it's a wise child that knows its own father". But the overt assumptions of the programme are irrelevant anyway. Even at the time, precise heredity was less important than winning battles (why else was Henry VII accepted? Not because marrying Elizabeth of York gave him some greater heredity, but because it removed any risk of alternative claimants from that side).

And in any case, all that was superseded by the events of the 17th century, which comprehensively settled that, in the end, Parliament decides. The Act of Settlement trumps any proof of hanky-panky in the 1440s.
PatrickLondon is offline  
Old Aug 14th, 2013, 11:29 PM
  #120  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 28,672
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
<i> >>Wallis claims American citizenship?<< Irrelevant in the law of the time, I suspect.</i>

If she were not a British citizen, I don't think she could be tried for treason against Britain. (But I imagine she was a British citizen.)

Lord Haw-Haw, as I recall, was tried and hanged for treason even though he was not a British subject, on the basis that he had availed himself of a fake British passport.
jahoulih is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Your Privacy Choices -