Author Topic: the windors claim to the throne  (Read 15004 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

jake

  • Guest
the windors claim to the throne
« on: April 15, 2004, 05:10:01 AM »
it was recently stated on a tv programme that the windsors have no real claim to the british throne as going back in history their ancestor Edward IV was really illegitamate and thus making the British claim to the throne nil. They said that edwards younger brother the duke of clarence should have succeded to the throne instead. His desendant now lives in Australia and is a british earl.

do you think that he should now succed to the throne of Britain, given that all revelations were based on scientific fact, or shuld the windors stay on the throne even though the only british blood in them came from the now deceased Queen mother, formerly the husband of george VI?

Offline Louise

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 459
    • View Profile
Re: the windors claim to the throne
« Reply #1 on: April 15, 2004, 08:56:31 AM »
Oh pish posh and pox on revisionists. The Windsors, formerly Saxe-Coburg-Gotha--are British. The last soveriegn born outside the British Isles was George II. In my humble estimation that makes the current queen British. Her husband has been naturalized as a British citizen.

The Queen Mother, God bless her, was the wife of King George.

David, as a colonist from the Commonwealth of Canada, I heartily concur about the Queen. God Bless the Queen and long may she reign.

Louise
The sign of a sick mind is studying for a final exam and thinking it's the

Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4665
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: the windors claim to the throne
« Reply #2 on: April 15, 2004, 09:44:33 AM »
By the way all, this "Jake" is the same "Jake/Jacob" who was banned yesterday, he has changed his email address again...sadly, perhaps we might need to check his email address before replying...they are all aol addresses, starting with "www.Jim" and numbers....so click the little envelope icon under his guest name, and if it is a similar address, beware!
I have been banning all the new email address he has been using.

Offline Louise

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 459
    • View Profile
Re: the windors claim to the throne
« Reply #3 on: April 15, 2004, 10:04:31 AM »
Alas, and here I gave him almost the benefit of the doubt. Sigh... :-/

Louise
The sign of a sick mind is studying for a final exam and thinking it's the

Offline nerdycool

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 675
    • View Profile
Re: the windors claim to the throne
« Reply #4 on: April 15, 2004, 02:13:27 PM »
You know, I was thinking about this yesterday when I was replying to posts from Jake/Jacob.......

I felt like the owner of a dog, whose main job was to go around after this animal cleaning up its "business".

I realize that these people should not warrant a response from others because of their attitutes, but something about it makes me want to tell them that their sense of reality is kind of warped, and so I follow these people around the board doing so. I've noticed that same thing happeneing with palace members and other questionable guests, so maybe it's just not me who finds it their "job."....... JMHO :)

Offline _Rodger_

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 53
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: the windors claim to the throne
« Reply #5 on: April 15, 2004, 02:50:56 PM »
The funny thing is Jake is wrong even in regards to the non-British issue.

The current ruling house's ancestry is easily traced to the Stuarts, the Tudors, the Plantagenents, and earlier.

They can make a claim of descent from Alfred the Great as well as the early royal lines of Scotland, Wales, Northumbria, and the ancient pagan tribal kings of Roman Britain.

I wish some of these people would rely more on the historical record, and less on the republican BBC. . .  ::)
WARNING!!!!  This post may be hazardous to one's sense of things.  Read with caution.

Offline David_Newell

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 116
  • We shall meet again in far, far better place
    • View Profile
Re: the windors claim to the throne
« Reply #6 on: April 15, 2004, 04:17:22 PM »
Thank you Roger, Louise in the wonderfull Commenwealth of Canada and to all who have relpied to this. I am afraid I have no sense of humour when it comes to the Monarchy. I f one does not defend it and nuture it we could so easly loose it. We have been through some tough times just lately. Divorce, death and the loss of the Queen Mother and Princess Margaret. But our Queen carries on, doing what is frowned apon now, her duty. Duty is such a non word these days. I set great store by it. I was brought up to believe in one thing God, King and  Country. It pains me sometimes to see that our beloved Queen is more popular in France and the USA. But when it comes down to it she is still the best thing we have and this country does know it. The Jubilee was not my idea of a proper jubilee but several million people on the Mall, proved on or to things to the republican mob

David Newell, London

Offline Namarolf

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 62
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: the windors claim to the throne
« Reply #7 on: April 29, 2004, 11:48:56 PM »
What happens if someone descending from the Roman Catholic branches excluded (in 1701 I think) from the British line of succession gives up Roman Catholicism and joins the Church of England? Would he/she be an acceptable candidate to marry someone already in the line? I guess yes, since the only condition now is not being a Roman Catholic. But if the answer is yes, and given the fact that those lines are (genealogically) senior to the Windsors, what would be the position of the children from such a marriage in the line of succession?

Offline nerdycool

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 675
    • View Profile
Re: the windors claim to the throne
« Reply #8 on: May 13, 2004, 02:28:58 PM »
I would think that the family lines' seniority to the Windsors would have been null and void since 1701, regardless of religion conversions in today's time. The lines of succession would continue as is. JMHO.

Ivan Kent Steinke

  • Guest
Re: the windors claim to the throne
« Reply #9 on: May 20, 2004, 02:52:12 PM »
I am not well-read as to whether or not Edward IV was the legitimate heir to the throne. However, the statement that the royal family are not British is absolutely untenable.

First of all, there was no country called Germany until 1871. There were a large number of independent counries populated by racial Germans- Hanover, Hesse, Prussia, etc. It is better to speak of being Germanic than German. The Anglo-Saxons, the first Englishmen, were definitely Germanic. A strong strain of Germanic blood runs in the veins of all Englishmen.

I believe that there WAS a question [at one time] as to whether the present British royal house represented the legitimate branch. However, the question of their being British or non-British isn't really an issue, in my estimation. Here's why.

Even if German descent could exclude one from inheriting the throne: Although George I was born and raised in Germany, he was, indeed, a direct lineal descendant of King James II. If the king (definitely a Brit.) was his ancestor, and he, conversely, was the great-grandson of the king (which he was), then for all practical intents and purposes he was a Brit., plain and simple.

Britain's royal family is unique in the massive level of continuity from common ancestors. Queen Elizabeth II can trace her descent, through George I and James II, to James I. James I can trace his descent, through the houses of Lancaster and York, back to the Plantagenets, who were direct descendants of William the Conqueror.

The only question that might have existed [regarding the legitimacy of the present house] had to do with James III, the old pretender, Duke of York. The Duke of York was, as the eldest son of James II, the legitimate heir to the throne. However, his last descendant died in the 1790s. Their closest relatives were (and are) the present royal house. Upon the death of the last Stuart claimant they would have inherited the throne anyway.

The statement that the Windsors have no genetic claim to be British is, frankly, hogwash.

Offline Namarolf

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 62
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: the windors claim to the throne
« Reply #10 on: May 23, 2004, 10:06:14 PM »
James "III" had two sons, Charles "III" (d. 1788) and Henry "IX" (d. 1807). After Henry's death, his closest relative was Charles of Savoy, not George III, but he was a Roman Catholic, so he and his branch were already excluded from the line of succession.
As far as I know, the "legitimist" or "Jacobite" succession went as follows:
Charles "IV" (Savoy), his brother Victor "I", his daughter Mary "II", her son Francis "I" (Duke of Modena), his niece Mary "III" (consort Queen of Bavaria), her son Rupert "I", his son Albert "I" and his son Francis "II", current head of the former Royal house of Bavaria. He is single, the next in line being his brother Max. Max's elder daughter Sophia is married to the Crown Prince of Liechtenstein.

Ivan Kent Steinke

  • Guest
Re: the windors claim to the throne
« Reply #11 on: May 24, 2004, 11:49:20 AM »
That is very interesting, I mean what you said about Charles of Savoy. However, I have a question for you. Being related to Henry IX did not necessarily make an individual eligible to be king, if the relationship was on the wrong side. The common thread of relationship for English kings was descent from William the Conqueror.
    Okay, so here's my question. Was Charles of Savoy descended from William the Conqueror?

Offline Namarolf

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 62
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: the windors claim to the throne
« Reply #12 on: May 24, 2004, 01:14:17 PM »
Certainly Charles of Savoy was from the same line of William the Conqueror.

James I had several children, including:
-Charles I
-Elizabeth, Queen consort of Bohemia, grandmother of George I.

Charles I had several children, including:
-Charles II
-James II
-Henrietta Anne (1644-1670), married to Philip of Bourbon, Duke of Orleans

Henrietta was the mother of Anne Marie (1669-1728), who married Victor Amadeus II, King of Sardinia and Duke of Savoy and was the mother of Charles III of Sardinia (1701-1773). His son by Princess Polyxene of Hesse-Rheinfelds-Rothenburg, Victor Amadeus III (1726-1796), was the father of two Kings of Sardinia and Jacobite pretenders:
-  Charles (1751-1819), married Clotilde of France, sister of Louis XVI, but had no issue.
- Victor (1759-1824), married Maria Theresa of Modena and had several children, including the Jacobite pretender Mary "II" (1792-1840), who married Francis, Duke of Modena, and had issue, from whom descends the present day "Jacobite" claimant, Francis of Bavaria.

As it can be seen, genealogically the current "Jacobite" line, and all the other (countless) descendants from Henrietta and Philip of Bourbon, are senior to the members of the Hannoverian/Windsor line, but they are barred from the succession.



Ivan Kent Steinke

  • Guest
Re: the windors claim to the throne
« Reply #13 on: May 25, 2004, 05:39:17 PM »
Hello, again-
    I have another question. I was under the impression (from something I had read) that the Wittelsbach (Royal family of Bavaria) were the closest relatives to Henry IX, and therefore the heirs to the senior branch of the British royal family. Where does this line fit in?

Offline jackie3

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 174
  • "...such pig and filth!" - GD Anastasia N.
    • View Profile
Re: the windors claim to the throne
« Reply #14 on: May 26, 2004, 12:31:32 PM »
Quote
Hello, again-
     I have another question. I was under the impression (from something I had read) that the Wittelsbach (Royal family of Bavaria) were the closest relatives to Henry IX, and therefore the heirs to the senior branch of the British royal family. Where does this line fit in?



As Namarolf said after the death of Henry IX (aka Henry Cardinal Duke of York) and the end of the direct male Stuart line, the legitmate claim to the throne passed to the heirs of Henrietta Anne, Duchess of Orleans, sister of Charles II and James II. By the time of Henry's death, her direct heirs were the House of Savoy. As the years passed with marriages and inter-marriages the claim descended in the 20th century to the Royal Bavarian House of Wittlesbach where it rests today as the senior linear descendant of Charles I (ahead of the Windsors descended from Charles' sister). The current Jacobite "heir" is Francis, Duke of Bavaria.

Since Francis is childless, his claim will eventually pass to his brother Max and from Max to his eldest daughter Princess Sophie who is married to the heir to the throne of Liechtenstein - her son Joseph Wenzel will one day rule that tiny principality and be the de jure Jacobite heir to England, Scotland and Ireland.

A genelogical tree can be found here: http://www.jacobite.ca/index.htm