PDA

View Full Version : The Real Royal Family



electromagneticpulse
2004-Nov-20, 11:36 PM
This mainly goes out to people in the UK but did anyone see the program on earlyer Britain's Real Monarchy with Baldric (Tony Robinson).
http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/i-m/monarch.html
http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/i-m/monarchtree.html

Use the second link and after Edward III follow the right hand side which is a now thought legitimate marriages offspring. They found the kind living in australia and Baldric is now a Knight :D

Maybe it would do to have some more blood in the royal pool as its getting a little shallow 8-[

sarongsong
2004-Nov-21, 02:54 AM
...Use the second link...They found the king living in australia...
The pop-up article (using Netscape 6.2) resulting from clicking that last arrow is cut-off in the 3rd paragraph. What comes after:
"...When Michael's mother died in October 2000, he inherited the---"?
What a story---will they recount the votes? [-(

ignorant_ape
2004-Nov-21, 03:00 PM
yup i saw it , very interesting - esp the 1st prog , i was not fully compus mentos so i may be wrong - but i did have issues with the " cast iron proof " of the conception date

a 5 week window is not that large and unless i missed it there was no proof that edwards mother and father were seperate for the entire time

yes there were rumours and other evidence - but the date seemed over hyped

the disparity in christening pomp - i admit was i admit daming

but as i say - i was woosy having just escaped from hospital so i may have missed things




the second prog was more entertainment than factual -

the search to track down " king micheal the first " is the sort of thing that robinson does very well

even better that he ( micheal ) was fully aware of his plantagenate <sp > heritage and minor title he posessed

and had abandoned all trappings for what seemed a very contented life styple in australia

an attitute that seems all too rare in modern materialistic society


there was deffo bad science with the hair samples - surely someone should have caught that sooner

YRS - APE

electromagneticpulse
2004-Nov-21, 03:09 PM
yup i saw it , very interesting - esp the 1st prog , i was not fully compus mentos so i may be wrong - but i did have issues with the " cast iron proof " of the conception date

a 5 week window is not that large and unless i missed it there was no proof that edwards mother and father were seperate for the entire time

yes there were rumours and other evidence - but the date seemed over hyped

the disparity in christening pomp - i admit was i admit daming

but as i say - i was woosy having just escaped from hospital so i may have missed things




the second prog was more entertainment than factual -

the search to track down " king micheal the first " is the sort of thing that robinson does very well

even better that he ( micheal ) was fully aware of his plantagenate <sp > heritage and minor title he posessed

and had abandoned all trappings for what seemed a very contented life styple in australia

an attitute that seems all too rare in modern materialistic society


there was deffo bad science with the hair samples - surely someone should have caught that sooner

YRS - APE

I had a few problems with it too but if it's true then i find it funny as the royal family doesn't hold rightful claim over englands land. Maybe i should sell my land on to some third world country... getting the kings permission ofcourse :D

(P.S. somethings going on with the BA on my computer like pop-ups and the homesite is a refferal to a virus installer 8-[ )

Silent Knight
2004-Nov-22, 01:08 AM
Legitimate. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_IV_of_England#Was_Edward_illegitimate.3F)


Although it is a fascinating study of alternate history, the documentary is factually inaccurate, and we can safely say that as of 2004 the monarch on the English throne is a legitimate ruler.

AndrewGPaul
2004-Nov-22, 01:24 AM
Haven't there been any changes of dynasty since then? If so, then the legitimacy of a previous dynasty should have no bearing on the legitimacy of the current dynasty. After all, it then boils down to "I'm king because I have more henchmen than you. Get over it."

Makgraf
2004-Nov-22, 02:38 AM
After the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the general consensus is that dynastic legitimacy springs from Parliament. That is why they could seat William and Mary as Monarchs over the "rightful" ruler, King James. This was cemented by Parliament saying that their successor would be the Stuart's closest Protestant relative, skipping over catholics with a better claim (which is why the current British monarchs are German).

electromagneticpulse
2004-Nov-22, 01:34 PM
After this claim, the programme suddenly rushes into stating (wrongly) that if Edward IV shouldn't have been king, it means that all kings and queens after him are not entitled to the monarchy and that the "true" king, who is living in another land, is entitled to claim the throne.

The king in the other land (australia) can by right claim the throne to england. By claim ofcourse i mean getting an army that can defeat the british army and then he can be made king, but the "rightful" king doesn't believe in a monarchy so that plans down the Thomas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Crapper) (i can't believe people argued over him existing or "not").